The Indiana Tort Claims Act’s immunity for losses caused by temporary weather conditions during the period of reasonable response to a weather condition lasts at least until the weather condition has stabilized.
Civil
Johnson v. Johnson, No. 46S04-0907-CV-00346, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2010)
Dissolution agreement for husband to pay wife for her interest in the family farm, although silent on the subject, must have contemplated the regular annual renewal of the farm’s debt to finance its operations, but not the higher level of debt necessary to finance husband’s obligations to wife; trial court erred in modifying wife’s lien to allow husband to finance his divorce obligations.
Hicks v. Smith, No. 54A01-0904-CV-189, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 19, 2010)
When husband violated court order by absconding with child and failing to pay child support, trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding judgment on husband’s child support arrearage to wife.
Henderson v. Henderson, No. 30A04-0907-CV-387, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 21, 2010)
Trial court erred in finding indirect contempt without following the required indirect contempt procedures; trial court also erred in failing to consider evidence at the final hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage.
Smither v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 55A04-0902-CV-70, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2010)
(1) The six-year statute of limtitations on “[a]ctions on accounts and contracts not in writing,” governs credit card accounts; (2) because a credit card is akin to an open account, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the account is due; (3) whether “the date the account is due” is the date of debtor’s last payment or the next due date, the credit card company in this case filed its lawsuit more than six years after both of those dates; (4) whether a credit card company can invoke an optional acceleration clause to delay the statute of limitations, the credit card company in this case did not properly invoke such a clause, because it did not take any affirmative action to notify the debtor of its intent to do so.