Your Appellate Attorneys in Indiana
Appealing divorce and family law trial court decisions is a difficult and specialized legal field. The appellate practice is governed by a specific set of Appellate Rules which mandates compliance with strict procedures, timetables, and many other requirements. Our attorneys have numerous, successful experiences in the appellate arena, especially over the last 20 years. This representation includes defending successful judgments received by our clients at the trial level, appealing and overturning negative judgments received by our clients at the trial level, being hired by litigants to appeal or defend a trial court’s decision, and, notably, being hired by other law firms to represent their clients in appealing or defending trial court judgments. You can rely on our firm to see your case all the way through the judicial process, as far as the Supreme Court of Indiana, if necessary. Along with numerous appearances in the Indiana appellate court, Perry Shilts has argued before the Indiana Supreme Court on two occasions and Mike Setlak has done likewise on one occasion. Below is a partial list of appellate decisions in which one or more of our attorneys was involved.
The Court of Appeals allows a party to appeal a trial court’s decision on custody, parenting time, or support as a part of a divorce process or as a part of an effort to modify a previous agreement or order on custody, parenting time, or support. The Court of Appeals has several long-established standards of review of the trial court decisions which it applies when such an appeal is presented. The Court of Appeals does not reweigh the evidence under any circumstances.
The Court of Appeals allows a party to appeal a trial court’s inclusion of an asset or debt in the marital estate, the valuation of a particular asset, an award of a particular asset or debt to a particular party, or a percentage award in favor of one party or the other of the entire marital estate. Again, the Court has several long-established standards of review that it applies depending upon the issue presented. The trial court’s decision on appeal is given very serious deference within these legal standards of review.
The Court of Appeals allows a party to appeal a trial court’s award of attorney fees against a particular party. Serious consideration needs to be given to whether the trial court actually made an error that deserves to be corrected. If the party seeking to appeal something that is clearly wrong with the trial court’s decision, is going to win on that issue, then settlement efforts can be pursued before the commencement of the appeal in order to avoid the costs of the appeal which can be extensive. If the trial court’s decision is not so clearly in error, settlement efforts can still be made because both sides should be aware of the costs of pursuing an appeal, the time involved, and the consequences of the appeal being partially or fully granted.
Contact the firm other firms rely upon to argue their appellate cases
If your case is in its infancy and you want to be sure that the firm you choose has the capacity to see your case through to finality, or if you have previously received a trial court decision that is unfavorable to you which you would like to appeal or is favorable to you and which you need to defend, contact Shilts & Setlak, LLC for consultation with our highly experienced and knowledgeable appellate level attorneys. Shilts & Setlak, LLC has the experience in the appellate practice area to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing settlement prior to the commencement of any appeal and to advise you accordingly.
I. Salser v. Salser, 75 N.E.3d 553 (Ind.App. 2017)
II. In Re Marriage of Phillips, 66 N.E.3d 1011 (Ind.App. 2016)
III. Johnson v. Johnson, 51 N.E.3d 455 (Ind.App. 2016)
IV. Simmons v. Simmons, 49 N.E.3d 195 (Ind.App. 2016)
V. Loomis v. Loomis, 39 N.E.3d 721 (Ind.App. 2015)
VI. Masters v. Masters, 20 N.E.3d 158 (Ind.App. 2014)
VII. Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind.App. 2013)
VIII. Schwartz v. Heeter, 970 N.E.2d 197 (Ind.App. 2012)
IX. Gerard v. Gerard, 973 N.E.2d 109 (Ind.App. 2012)
X. Fackler v. Powell, 923 N.E.2d 973 (Ind.App. 2010)
XI. Fackler v. Powell, 891 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind.App. 2008)
XII. Fackler v. Powell, 816 N.E.2d 476 (Ind.App. 2004)
XIII. Grove v. Grove, 895 N.E.2d 137 (Ind.App. 2008)
XIV. Justice v. Justice, 872 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.App. 2007)
XV. In Re Paternity of N.S.L. ex rel Gramling v. LeFebvre, 864 N.E.2d 463 (Ind.App. 2007)
