Preview:

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.

FILED
Mar 27 2012, 8:52 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALAN D. WILSON Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: LOUIS D. EVANS Frankfort, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KARYL POGUE, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. KIM RAWLINGS and DEBORAH S. RAWLINGS, Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 12A02-1107-PL-654

APPEAL FROM THE CLINTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Justin H. Hunter, Judge Cause No. 12D01-1002-PL-72

March 27, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Karyl Pogue appeals the trial courts judgment in favor of Kim Rawlings and Deborah Rawlings on Pogues complaint alleging fraud, following a bench trial. Pogue presents a single restated issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it entered judgment in favor of the Rawlingses. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trial court set out the relevant facts in its judgment as follows: Buyer [Pogue] and Seller [the Rawlingses] executed a land contract (Exhibit A) on December 29, 2007[,] for the purchase and sale of residential real estate located in Clinton County, Indiana (hereafter "the Property"). The sales price was $80,000 and the seller[-]financed terms called for buyer to pay $8,000 up front and monthly payments of $550 including interest on principal at the rate of 5% per annum. The residence on the Property was over one hundred years old when sold to Buyer. Seller had previously lived in the residence between the years 1975 and 2003. Seller did not provide Buyer with a disclosure form required by Ind. Code

Download Karyl Pogue v. Kim Rawlings and Deborah S. Rawlings.pdf

Indiana Law