Case Information
*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANTS A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEES John J. Schwarz, II Bill D. Eberhard, Jr.
Schwarz Law Office, PC Eberhard & Weimer, P.C.
Hudson, Indiana LaGrange, Indiana I N T H E
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Audrey Mullins and October 4, 2017 Danny Mullins, Court of Appeals Case No. 44A03-1611-MI-2631 Appellants-Plaintiffs,
Appeal from the LaGrange Superior Court v.
The Honorable Lisa M. Bowen- Slaven, Judge Robert Maas and Gail Maas, Cause No. 44D01-1310-MI-77 Appellees-Defendants. Bradford, Judge.
[1] On July 27, 2017, in an unpublished memorandum decision, we affirmed the
trial court’s denial of the motion for relief from judgment filed by Appellants- Plaintiffs Audrey and Danny Mullins. The Mullinses had sought relief from the judgment entered in favor or Appellees-Defendants Robert and Gail Maas on the Mullinses claim of adverse possession.
[2] The Mullines now seek rehearing, claiming that we erroneously affirmed the
trial court’s denial of their motion for relief from judgment and wrongly indicated that the trial court’s denial had the effect of granting the Maases title in the Disputed Parcel. Specifically, the Mullinses point to this sentence from paragraph 1 of our memorandum decision : “The trial court, however, granted the Maases’ motion to correct error, which grant awarded possession of the Disputed Parcel to them.” The Mullinses are correct that n othing the trial court did had the effect of granting the Masses title to the Disputed Parcel. To that end, we grant the Mullinses’ rehearing petition for the limited purpose of vacating any portion of our July 27, 2017, memorandum opinion indicating or suggesting that the trial court awarded title in the Disputed Parcel to the Maases. As for the Mullinses’ other claims, we conclude that they are without merit. We grant the Mullinses’ petition for rehearing in part and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects. [1]
*3 May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
[1] In orders issued contemporaneously with this memorandum decision on rehearing, we grant the Mullinses’ motion to amend their petition for rehearing and deny the Maases’ motion to strike the Mullinses’ amended petition for rehearing.