Because the victims of the civil rights action are the decedent’s survivors, not the decedent himself, no estate needed to be open for the sole purpose of pursuing a federal civil rights action.
Buskirk v. Buskirk, No. 06A01-1610-DR-2296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2017).
Contract between husband and wife, on keeping their property and income separate, entered into after marriage disagreement, was an enforceable reconciliation agreement made with valid consideration.
In re Adoption of J.R.O., No. 82A05-1706-AD-1331, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2017).
Ind. Code 31-19-9-18 does not require the filing of a written motion to contest an adoption; counsel’s oral objection was sufficient.
Edmonson v. State, No. 84A01-1609-PC-2150, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2017).
Defendant’s PCR petition was not barred by the doctrine of laches because State failed to show prejudice; however, he was properly denied relief because the trial court was not required to advise him of collateral consequences of his guilty plea.
Duty v. CIT Group, No. 71A04-1704-MF-920, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2017).
Debtor does not have standing to challenge an allegedly invalid assignment of the right to collect the debt.