Audrey Mullins and Danny Mullins v. Robert Maas and Gail Maas (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Oct 04 2017, 9:46 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK Indiana Supreme Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES John J. Schwarz, II Bill D. Eberhard, Jr. Schwarz Law Office, PC Eberhard & Weimer, P.C. Hudson, Indiana LaGrange, Indiana

IN THE 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 v. Court The Honorable Lisa M. Bowen- Slaven, Judge Robert Maas and Gail Maas, Cause No. 44D01-1310-MI-77 Appellees-Defendants.

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 44A03-1611-MI-2631 | October 4, 2017 Page 1 of 3 [1] On July 27, 2017, in an unpublished memorandum decision, we affirmed the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 nothing 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

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. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 44A03-1611-MI-2631 | October 4, 2017 Page 2 of 3 May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 44A03-1611-MI-2631 | October 4, 2017 Page 3 of 3