Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc., 1--575A85
| Citation | 167 Ind.App. 248, 338 N.E.2d 513 |
| Case Date | December 16, 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 513
v.
DEPENDABLE DELIVERY, INC., et al., Appellees.
[167 Ind.App. 249]
Page 514
J. Michael Hardin, Indianapolis, for defendants-appellants.Harold V. Jones, Jr., Thompson & Jones, Columbus, for appellees Dependable Delivery, Inc., Robert Cauble and Clara Cauble.
William H. Andrews, John G. Baker, Baker, Barnhart & Andres, Bloomington, for appellee Arnold Richard Gibbs, d/b/a Gibbs & Doty Realtors.
ON THE APPELLEES' MOTIONS TO DISMISS APPEAL OR AFFIRM JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
This cause is pending before the Court on the Motion of the appellee Arnold Richard Gibbs, d/b/a Gibbs & Doty Realtors, to Dismiss the Appeal, and the Motion of the appellees Dependable Delivery, Inc., Robert Cauble and Clara Cauble, to Dismiss or Affirm Judgment, each of which motions alleges various defects in the record of the proceedings and in the appellants' brief.
We have carefully examined the record and the appellants' brief, and after such examination, we have reluctantly concluded that the appellants have not presented a record sufficient to support their claimed errors, and they have not presented sufficient argument in their brief to demonstrate
Page 515
reversible error. Accordingly, the Motions to Affirm are sustained.Turning first to the record, the appellants' Motion to Correct Errors, omitting caption and formal parts, reads as follows:
'MOTION TO CORRECT ERRORS
'Come now defendants, by counsel, and, pursuant to Trial Rule 59 of Indiana Rules of Procedure, moves (sic) the Court to modify the judgment rendered herein on October 17, 1974 as follows:
'I.
'Issue: The judgment does not allow for a reasonable rental value for the property for the period the plaintiffs were in possession.
'Facts: Testimony and evidence showed that the plaintiffs had possession, occupancy, and use of the premises from June, 1971 until November 1974.
[167 Ind.App. 250] 'Error: Disallowance of a reasonable rental value is contrary to law. (Trial Rule 59, Indiana Rules of Procedure, Section 8).
'Grounds: Defendants rely on the doctrines of equity, unjust enrichment, quasi contract, quantum meruit, rescission, and the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Smeekens vs. Bertrand, Rendered May 23, 1974, (No. 574S103), 42 Indiana Decisions 74.
'Relief: Defendants pray for an amended judgment in favor of the defendants for $4,171.84, based upon a reasonable rental value of $16,741.94, less the amount paid by plaintiffs of $12,570.10, leaving a balance of $4,171.84.
'II.
'In addition to paragraph I supra, defendants move for a new trial on the following grounds:
'(A) The granting of a Summary Judgment in regard to defendants Gibbs and Doty was done in error.
'(B) The admission of hearsay evidence was done in error and was prejudicial to these defendants.
'(C) The admission of parol evidence was done in error.
'(D) The complaint had been cured and did not require rescission.'
Point I of the Motion to Correct Errors refers to the testimony and evidence to support the claimed error asserted therein. However, the record does not contain a transcript of the evidence and proceedings at trial. There is inserted in the record, immediately following the motion to correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suyemasa v. Myers, 1-180
...when the appellant has failed to cite authority in support of his or her argument, see Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc., (1975) 167 Ind.App. 248, 338 N.E.2d 513, we prefer to decide cases on their merits when possible. Mathews v. Mathews, (1972) 151 Ind.App. 70, 278 N.E.2d 325. Since we......
-
United Farm Bureau Family Life Ins. Co. v. Fultz, 1-277A25
...or oppressive, Chris' allegation was a legally sufficient claim for relief. 3 In Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc. (1975), Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 513, this court "It is basic and fundamental that an appellant has the burden to provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to permit ......
-
Hughes v. Hughes, 1--276A22
...with a record sufficient to permit consideration of the claimed error or errors.' Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc. (1975), Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 513, ISSUE TWO: The instant case presents a question of first impression in Indiana: Whether persons who own land as joint tenants with right o......
-
Sacks v. State, 2--975A237
...brief. It is therefore waived. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc. (1975) Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 513 (and cases cited 5 Sacks raised the sufficiency question in his Motion to Correct Errors but argued it in his brief by challenging the denia......
-
Suyemasa v. Myers, 1-180
...court's judgment when the appellant has failed to cite authority in support of his or her argument, see Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc., (1975) 167 Ind.App. 248, 338 N.E.2d 513, we prefer to decide cases on their merits when possible. Mathews v. Mathews, (1972) 151 Ind.App. 70, 278 N.E......
-
United Farm Bureau Family Life Ins. Co. v. Fultz, 1-277A25
...was fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive, Chris' allegation was a legally sufficient claim for relief.3 In Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc. (1975), Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 513, this court stated:"It is basic and fundamental that an appellant has the burden to provide the reviewing court wi......
-
Hughes v. Hughes, 1--276A22
...the reviewing court with a record sufficient to permit consideration of the claimed error or errors.' Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc. (1975), Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 513, 516. ISSUE The instant case presents a question of first impression in Indiana: Whether persons who own land as joint ......
-
Sacks v. State, 2--975A237
...ignored this issue in his brief. It is therefore waived. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Kerkhof v. Dependable Delivery, Inc. (1975) Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 513 (and cases cited therein).5 Sacks raised the sufficiency question in his Motion to Correct Errors but argued it in......