In a divorce, a large asset that had been forgotten by both parties at the time of signing the property settlement agreement was not subject to later division by the court because the asset was included under “assets of the business.”
P. Riley
Hochstetler v. State, No. 22A-CR-02154, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2023).
Under the intimidation statute, actual malice is based on the mindset of the defendant when the defamatory words are communicated, not their intention while contemplating the defamatory act. Inherent in actual malice is the necessity for speech to be disseminated rather than merely threatened. Moreover, criminal conduct is not protected by the church-autonomy doctrine even if carried out using communications about church doctrine or policy.
Randall v. Woodson, No. 22A-PL-2830, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2023).
Social Security Administration has exclusive authority over the issues of benefit misuse by representative payees and over the recovery of those misused funds; a trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Fields v. Gaw, No. 22A-CT-2687, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 14, 2023).
Landlord was not an “owner” of her tenants’ dogs for purposes of establishing liability under Indiana’s Liability for Dog Bites Statute
Ivankovic v. Ivankovic, No. 22A-DC-2933, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2023).
There is no visitation for pets; trial court should not have included in dissolution decree a provision which allows the family dog to travel back and forth between the parties’ households during parenting time.