Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McKibben v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Indiana

December 19, 2014

EUNICE MCKIBBEN, Appellant/Defendant,
v.
JEFF HUGHES, b/n/f JOYCE HUGHES, Appellee/Plaintiff

Page 820

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 821

APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable George Hopkins, Judge. Cause No. 34D04-1204-PL-376.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JEREMY A. PEELLE, Peelle Law Office, Kokomo, Indiana.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DAN J. MAY, Kokomo, Indiana.

PYLE, Judge. FRIEDLANDER, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.

Page 822

OPINION

PYLE, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant/Defendant, Eunice McKibben (" McKibben" ), appeals the trial court's judgment requiring McKibben to reimburse Appellee/Plaintiff, Jeff Hughes (" Hughes" ) $14,879.55 for funds she spent repairing a property he had conveyed to her (" the Property" ) and for checks she wrote from their joint checking account. She argues that there was no evidence that she paid for the repairs with Hughes' funds or that she withdrew the checks for her benefit. She claims that she wrote the checks to satisfy bills for the Property that he was required to pay as her tenant.

Hughes cross-appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of his request to rescind the deed for the Property he conveyed to McKibben. He argues that McKibben committed constructive fraud because they had a confidential or fiduciary relationship, and he relied on her misstatements when he transferred the property to her. Alternatively, he argues that McKibben was unjustly enriched by his conveyance and that he was incompetent to convey the deed.

With respect to McKibben's appeal, we conclude that she is liable for the checks she wrote on their joint banking account because the funds in the account belonged to Hughes. Also, the checks she wrote were for rent and bill payments for the Property, which she owned, and she and Hughes did not have a landlord-tenant relationship. We also determine that the trial court did not err in finding that McKibben paid for the repairs to the Property with Hughes' funds. However, we find that the trial court miscalculated the judgment against McKibben, so we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions for the court to re-enter judgment against ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.