“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.”
Appeals
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.
Carter v. Grace Whitney Properties, No. 82A04-1003-SC-177, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)
Local rules authorizing contempt to enforce “personal order of garnishment,” an order to debtor to pay a money judgment in installments, violates Indiana Constitution; “personal orders of garnishment” may be used to compel debtor to apply property creditor shows is not exempt from execution; creditor may not use successive proceedings supplemental without showing new facts giving rise to belief the judgment debtor has property or income to satisfy the judgment.
Kistler v. State, No. 35A04-1004-PC-245, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)
Fact that maximum potential sentence of 88 years included 30 years for an invalid habitual offender allegation, which defense counsel failed to observe, did not entitle defendant to relief from his bargained sentence of 28 years, as defendant failed to show that a reasonable defendant would have refused to plead guilty had he known the correct maximum was 58 years.
Reeves v. State, No. 77A04-1005-CR-292, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2010)
Use of the crime concealment exception to the statute of limitations requires the State to allege in its charge facts which would establish concealment.