“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.
E. Brown
Ryan v. Ryan, No. 71A03-1009-DR-453, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2011)
The dissolution court “may issue an order providing additional terms to the extent the Settlement Agreement and Private Agreement are silent,” instead of modifying the terms of the Settlement Agreement to provide relief under TR 60(B).
In re the Paternity of R.M., No. 45A04-1001-JP-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)
The defense of laches can apply in paternity actions.
Norwood v. State, No. 49A04-1004-CR-212, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 15, 2010)
Subsequent protective order superseded initial ex parte protective order, so when regular protective order had expired protective order subject could not be guilty of invasion of privacy based on the ex parte order.
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.