Lender could recover equally under Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-118 and Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9 because it filed suit within six years of acceleration.
Supreme
In re M.S., No. 19S-JC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 20, 2020).
In a CHINS case, unlike the sixty-day deadline imposed by Ind. Code § 31-34-11-1(a) that may be waived by consent of the parties, the 120-day deadline contemplated by Ind. Code 31-34-11-1(b) may be enlarged only if a party shows good cause for a continuance.
S.H. v. D.W., No. 19S-PO-118, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Protection Order Act does not permit the reissuance, renewal, or extension of the protective order when there has been a single episode of physical violence with no follow-up act, no threat that the violence will recur, and no other reasonable grounds to believe there is present intent to harm.
In re Adoption of C.A.H., No. 20S-AD-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 10, 2020).
A parent’s implied consent to the adoption may not be based solely on their failure to appear at a single hearing.
American Consulting, Inc. v. Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc., No. 18S-PL-00437, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 18, 2019).
The liquidated damages provisions in the noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements are unenforceable penalties because the provisions are too broad and capture too much conduct to be construed as a reasonable measure of damages resulting from a breach.