Skendzel v. Marshall, No. 773S145

Docket NºNo. 773S145
Citation263 Ind. 337, 330 N.E.2d 747
Case DateJuly 14, 1975
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 747

330 N.E.2d 747
263 Ind. 337
Josephine SKENDZEL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Agnes P. MARSHALL and Charles P. Marshall, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 773S145.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 14, 1975.

Page 748

Richard F. DeTar, Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Le Roy K. Schultess, Howard E. Petersen, LaGrange, for appellees.

ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

HUNTER, Justice.

Following the denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court of this Court's opinion on transfer in this matter, the trial court requested that the parties submit a proposed decree in compliance with the order of remand contained in the opinion. That order was as follows:

'For all of the foregoing reasons, transfer is granted and the cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of foreclosure on the vendors' lien, pursuant to Trial Rule 69(C) and the mortgage foreclosure statute (IC 1971, 32--8--16--1 (Ind.Stat.Ann., § 3--1801 (1968 Repl.))) as modified by Trial Rule 69(C). Said judgment [263 Ind. 338] shall include an order for the payment of the unpaid principal balance due on said contract, together with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment. The order may also embrace any and all other proper and equitable relief that the court deems to be just, including the discretion to issue a stay of the judicial sale of the property, all pursuant to the provisions of Trial Rule 69(C). Such order shall be consistent with the principles and holdings developed within this opinion.'

Page 749

Skendzel v. Marshall (1973), Ind., 301 N.E.2d 641, 650--51.

Vendors filed a motion for a hearing, the purpose of such motion being to provide the trial court with evidence 'of any and all other equitable relief' which the trial court might grant the vendors. Specifically, the vendors hoped to focus the court's attention upon lines of inquiry suggested in a separate opinion. 1 The trial court impliedly overruled vendors' motion when it entered its judgment of foreclosure on August 6, 1974. The judgment contained findings, in part, that:

'(a) Interest at the rate of 8% should accrue on the balance due of $15,000.00, from said date of August 6, 1974;

'(b) The delinquent taxes paid by the plaintiff Josephine Skendzel were in the amount of $5,047.91; that the delinquent taxes paid by plaintiff Bernice Wysocki were in the sum of $1,837.06; and that a [263 Ind. 339] reimbursement of 'any additional taxes necessarily paid...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Fuquay v. State, No. 82A01-9107-CR-207
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 18, 1991
    ...possible juror misconduct is raised, the trial court should hold a hearing to determine whether such misconduct did exist. Barnes, at 330 N.E.2d at 747; Berkman v. State (1984), Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 44. However, a defendant seeking such a hearing must do more than present merely conclusory ......
  • Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Thompson, No. 55A05-9701-CV-33
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 7, 1997
    ...trial court to ensure that our instructions are carried out. Cooley v. State, 640 N.E.2d 433, 434 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); Skendzel v. Marshall, 263 Ind. 337, 330 N.E.2d 747, 749 (1975). "There can be no question but that this court retains jurisdiction of the original cause for the purpose ......
  • Woolston v. State, No. 682S231
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 19, 1983
    ...a member of the prosecutor's staff. We said that if the answer was yes to either question then grounds for cause existed. Id. at 326, 330 N.E.2d at 747. Although the juror in this case was not related to the prosecutor, he did have a close relationship with the State Police due to his wife'......
  • Easler v. State, Supreme Court Case No. 19S-CR-324
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 20, 2019
    ...misconduct, the party should be able to question that juror on his or her potential bias and then challenge that juror, if warranted. 330 N.E.2d at 747. See also Haak v. State , 275 Ind. 415, 417 N.E.2d 321, 324 (1981) ("Because the possibility of juror bias had been raised by appellan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Fuquay v. State, No. 82A01-9107-CR-207
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 18, 1991
    ...possible juror misconduct is raised, the trial court should hold a hearing to determine whether such misconduct did exist. Barnes, at 330 N.E.2d at 747; Berkman v. State (1984), Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 44. However, a defendant seeking such a hearing must do more than present merely conclusory ......
  • Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Thompson, No. 55A05-9701-CV-33
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 7, 1997
    ...trial court to ensure that our instructions are carried out. Cooley v. State, 640 N.E.2d 433, 434 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); Skendzel v. Marshall, 263 Ind. 337, 330 N.E.2d 747, 749 (1975). "There can be no question but that this court retains jurisdiction of the original cause for the purpose ......
  • Woolston v. State, No. 682S231
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 19, 1983
    ...a member of the prosecutor's staff. We said that if the answer was yes to either question then grounds for cause existed. Id. at 326, 330 N.E.2d at 747. Although the juror in this case was not related to the prosecutor, he did have a close relationship with the State Police due to his wife'......
  • Easler v. State, Supreme Court Case No. 19S-CR-324
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 20, 2019
    ...misconduct, the party should be able to question that juror on his or her potential bias and then challenge that juror, if warranted. 330 N.E.2d at 747. See also Haak v. State , 275 Ind. 415, 417 N.E.2d 321, 324 (1981) ("Because the possibility of juror bias had been raised by appellan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT