When insurer intervened in tort suit and obtained summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim it had no duty to defend, without a Trial Rule 54 determination by the trial judge of “no just reason for delay” and “an express direction for the entry of judgment” there was no appealable final judgment on the duty to defend issue.
Civil
St. Joseph Hosp.. v. Cain, No. 02A05-1006-PL-386, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 24, 2010)
Failure to file a verified petition as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and is a “procedural error.” Further, AOPA’s verified petition requirement does not preclude a court promulgated rule, so that an amended petition relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15.
New v. Personal Representative for the Estate of New, No. 71A04-0912-CV-744, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)
Estate beneficiaries were not entitled to notice when the personal representative’s amended final accounting, changed as ordered by the court after notice and a hearing, was filed and approved by the court.
Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 71A03-0912-CV-587, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)
“HUD [mortgage] servicing responsibilities . . . are binding conditions precedent that must be complied with before a mortgagee has the right to foreclose on a HUD property.”
Lombardi v. Vandeusen, No. 10A01-0910-CV-491, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2010)
Trial court erroneously concluded jurisdiction to modify support was not properly with Illinois court under UIFSA; ex parte pre-hearing conference, from which pro se obligee was excluded despite request to attend, at which evidence was discussed and documents were exchanged violated due process and results in opinion’s directing that case be assigned to a different judicial officer on remand.