Warren v. Warren
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1361
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellants are Sherman and Isabella Warren's children; Appellees are other Warren siblings seeking disinterment/re-interment.
- Isabella sought disinterment of Sherman in Kentucky; Kentucky permit was issued in 2005, and Sherman was moved to Indiana IOOF Cemetery.
- Isabella later sought disinterment of Sherman and herself; capacities and Alzheimer's condition raised questions of competency.
- Warren I (2009) addressed a prior challenge to the same disinterment procedure under I.C. §§ 23-14-57-1 and -5 and found no compelling reason to disinter.
- A separate Kentucky action against the permit was dismissed; current suit seeks declaratory judgment on standing to pursue disinterment in Indiana and re-interment in Kentucky.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees to pursue disinterment and re-interment; Appellants appeal claiming res judicata applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disinterment/re-interment issue is res judicata. | Warren: res judicata bars current challenge. | Appellees: the prior judgment covers the same issues and parties. | Yes; issue is res judicata and not reviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. IOOF Cemetery, 901 N.E.2d 615 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (addressed disinterment under I.C. §§ 23-14-57-1, -5; found no compelling reason to disinter)
- MicroVote General Corp. v. Indiana Election Com'n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (same-party requirement for res judicata can be satisfied by privies)
- Lake Monroe Regional Waste Dist. v. Waicukauski, 501 N.E.2d 466 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (res judicata as a public policy promoting fairness and economy)
- Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (four requirements for preclusion by res judicata)