Crosley Legal, LLC
Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
Thank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart
|Posted on September 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM||comments (22)|
In Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana v. Sharon Hatton, a/k/a Sharon J. Hatton, First Select, Inc., Calvary SPV, II, LLC, and Discover Bank, 45A03-1212-MF-531, the trial court granted the debtor's motion to dismiss, which was based on an error in the legal description on the mortgage and a standing argument.
The discussion of the legal description and reformation thereof is the more interesting issue in that the trial court indicated that the creditor would be unable to prove mutual mistake of fact because the original debtor was deceased. This reasoning was rejected for several reasons. The standing argument was shot down because the plaintiff/creditor is successor by merger to the original mortgagee, and proof of the merger was attached to the amended complaint.
For the full text of the opinion click here.
|Posted on August 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM||comments (4)|
|Posted on July 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM||comments (6)|
The Indiana Court of Appeals, in Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Grant and Blackford Counties v. M Jewell, LLC, Auditor of Grant County, Indiana and Treasurer of Grant County, Indiana,27A05-1211-MI-593, rejected the trial court's denial of a petition to set aside a tax deed. The July 25, 2013 opinion was based on the county auditor's failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement set out in I.C. § 6-1.1-24-4.
Specifically, the statute requires notice of an impending tax sale to be sent to the property owner of record at the address listed for the property owner in the county's records first by certified mail. If the return receipt is not signed and returned, the auditor is then required to send duplicate notice to the same address by first class mail. Lastly, if both mailings are returned due to a bad address, the auditor is required to search its records for an accurate or complete address.
In this instance the auditor was not aware of the failed mailings and did not search its records for an alternative address. The trial court nevertheless denied the petition to set aside the sale because of an error in the county's records that would likely have precluded the county from obtaining an accurate address. The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court's analysis and ordered the trial court to set aside the tax sale, stating:
|Posted on July 25, 2013 at 9:24 AM||comments (7)|
The 9th Circuit COA affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Fox against Dish Network, centered on technology that allows viewers to skip commercials. "Commercial-skipping does not implicate Fox's copyright interest because Fox owns the copyrights to the television programs, not to the ads aired in the commercial breaks," Judge Sidney Thomas wrote in Fox Broadcasting v. Dish Network. "If recording an entire copyrighted program is a fair use [under Sony], the fact that viewers do not watch the ads not copyrighted by Fox cannot transform the recording into a copyright violation."
|Posted on July 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM||comments (2)|
EA Taking Hits Over Madden Football: A federal jury rendered its second verdict against EA and in favor of Antonick in a three-phase trial centered on whether EA's Madden Football games were derived from Antonick's work.
|Posted on July 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM||comments (3)|
Effective July 1, 2013, IC 35-38-9 creates an opportunity for individuals throughout Indiana to clean up their records and gain access to greater career opportunities. The legislation has created an abundance of buzz and even more confusion, highlighted by hundreds of people rushing to the courthouse on July 1 under the false impression that they only had a one-day window to take advantage of the law. Despite the confusion, the legislation is a substantial expansion of the state's expungement law and a great opportunity for rehabilitated ex-offenders. Given its complexity and the fact that failed petitioners will need to wait 3 years to petition again, though, the consensus seems to be that individuals should consult an attorney before pursuing expungement.