When a jurisdictional priority problem arises in a proceeding concerning custody of a child, that jurisdictional priority problem presumptively qualifies as a potential ground for permissive intervention under TR 24(B)(2). Under these circumstances, permissive intervention should only be denied if the trial court finds that (1) the first-to-file petitioner has relinquished their interest in pursuing custody of the child, or (2) intervention is unnecessary because the child’s placement with the second-to-file petitioner is clearly in the child’s best interests. If neither finding is supported by the record, the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary and unusual to permit intervention under TR 24(B)(2).
Cingel v. Ferreri, No. 25A-DC-500, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
Litigant waived her appellate claims by citing nonexistent legal authorities and to real legal authorities that have nothing to do with the propositions they purport to support.
Noons v. First Merchants Bank, No. 25A-CC-419, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
Time to respond to a motion is tolled while a case is removed to federal court; the time period to respond resumes where it left off once the case is remanded to the state court again.
Sanders v. US Bank Trust Nat’l Assoc., No. 24A-MF-1265, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
Ind. Code 32-30-10-14, regarding the distribution of sheriff sale proceeds, allows junior mortgagees to retain their rights to surplus proceeds when their liens are displaced by a senior foreclosure.
Nielson v. State, No. 24A-CR-2295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
The invited-error doctrine applies only when a party challenging a trial-court action affirmatively requested the action as part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy.