Indiana Appeals

To Gain Relief from Default Judgment, Party Must Show A Meritorious Defense in Addition to Excusable Neglect

In Anderson and Powell v. State Auto Ins. Co., the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the requirements of Ind. T.R. 60(B)(1), namely what an appellant must show in order to be relieved of default judgment. In Anderson and Powell, default judgment was entered against Powell. The trial court found that Powell had established excusable neglect, in that Powell believed he was insured and took reasonable steps to contact his insurance carrier, but nonetheless entered default judgment because Powell did not show a meritorious defense. Powell claimed that the trial court erred by holding that T.R. 60(B)(1) requires a showing of a meritorious defense in addition to mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court rejected Powell's argument that the requirement to show a meritorious defense had been abrogated by Indiana case law. The court concluded that the language of T.R. 60(B)(1) has not been abrogated, and held that Powell was required to establish a meritorious defense in addition to excusable neglect in order to avail himself of the relief sought pursuant to T.R. 60(B)(1).

WHEN A PRIMARY BENEFICIARY IS DISQUALIFIED UNDER SLAYER'S RULE THE POLICY PROCEEDS SHOULD GO TO A LISTED CONTINGENT BENEFICIARY

In Estate of Diane Patrick Troxal v. S.P.T., Anthem Life Ins. Co. the Court held that when the primary beneficiary of a life isnurance policy murders the policy owner, the proceeds should go to the contingent beneficiary instead of a Constructive Trust as provided by Slayer's Rule (Ind. Code 29-1-2-12.1).  The Court stated that the rules of equity working with the constructive trust statute favor the distribution of the proceeds to an innocent contingent benificiary in accordance with the term's of the policy.   

APPELLATE COURT HOLDS STATE DID NOT ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TEEN IS LIKELY TO REPEAT ACT THAT WOULD BE A SEX OFFENSE IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT

In In the Matter of Z.H. The Appellate Court reversed the juvenile court's order forcing a teen to register as a sex offender because the State show by clear and convincing evidence that the teen was likely to repeat an act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult.  The teen was placed on probation for two years (as long as he sought treatment) for molesting a twelve year old girl with his brother.  The teen was 17 years old with an IQ of 58.  A report from the treatment center indicated that there was an incident during the treatment that indicated the teen may be a risk to return to his community, though the report did not explain this incident.  After further treatment another report recommended that he be placed on the sex offender registry.  The Appellate Court reversed the Juvenile Court's decision ruling that the Juvenile Court had not met its burden.

Inmates Claim That Prison Employees Unconstitutionally Prevented Him From Writing Papers On Anarchy Is Frivolous

In Eric D. Smith v. Ralph Carrasco and David Miller the Indiana Court of Appeals held that an inmates claim that prison employees unconstitutionally prevented him from writing papers on ararchy is frivolous.  The Court stated that the plaintiff failed to realize that being in prison brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitations of many priviliges.  Thus a prison is entitled to restrict the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances.  This being one of those circumstances because of the volatile nature of the writings and the risks that they pose to the security of the prison. 

When a Trial Court Sets Aside a Verdict Without Giving Reasons the Verdict Should Be Set Aside On Appeal

In Thomas M. Weida v. Donald and Kathy Kegarise the Indiana Supreme Court held that when a trial court sets aside a verdict because it is against the great weight of the evidence the judge must provide details for the reasons behind setting aside the verdict.  If the trial court sets aside a verdict without providing the reasons for doing so, the verdict should be reinstated on appeal.  The Court stated that when the trial court reviews evidence and orders a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court is acting in its role as the thirteenth juror and should "relate the supporting and opposing evidence to each issue upon which the new trial is granted."  (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 59(J)).