Cox v. State, No. 79A04-0912-CR-741, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

When child took the stand and testified he knew the difference between telling the truth and a lie and was subject to cross-examination but otherwise provided no testimony about the alleged molesting, and when there had been no testimony from mental health experts that testifying in court would traumatize the child, it was reversible error to admit videotape of child’s statement to a prosecutor’s interviewer about the alleged crimes.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 71A03-0912-CV-587, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)

“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.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

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.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

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.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

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.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion