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[1] On July 27, 2017, in an unpublished memorandum decision, we affirmed the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