Trial court erred when it interpreted Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4(3) to impose a statute of limitations on the BMV’s ability to impose an administrative suspension.
City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, No. 49A02-1002-CT-95, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2010)
(1) City waived its challenge based on the magistrate’s lack of authority to grant Plaintiff’s motion to correct error by failing to object until after time for ruling on the motion expired; (2) waiver notwithstanding, trial court properly used a nunc pro tunc order to grant Plaintiff’s motion, because the CCS provides a sufficient written memorial indicating the trial court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation within the required time.
Lucas v. U.S.A. Bank, N.A., No. 28A01-0910-CV-482, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010)
Although Mortgage Company’s mortgage foreclosure claim against Homeowners was equitable, Homeowners’ counterclaims based on consumer protection statutes were legal in nature; thus, Homeowners are entitled to a jury trial on their legal claims.
Paloutzian v. Taggart, No. 49A02-0908-CV-817, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2010)
The 2003 amendment to Ind. Code § 30-4-2.1-2, which abrogated the stranger to the adoption rule, applies retroactively to a trust created in 1953 before the settlor’s son adopted two children.
Calvert v. State, No. 40A05-0911-CR-659, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
Evidence proved no more than defendant’s preparation to commit a crime, which was not sufficient to prove the “substantial step” required for an attempt conviction. Defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon was based on proof he possessed the same sawed-off shotgun relied on to convict him of possession of a sawed-off shotgun, so that sawed-off shotgun conviction was prohibited under Indiana double jeopardy law.