Court Opinion

ID: 9724367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:54:17.634195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.761205
License: Public Domain

DARDEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, finding that the majority's analysis and result have elevated form over substance.
I would first note that since January of 2003, the matter of whether Jacobs could continue to, maintain life insurance policies on Hilliard's life has been before the trial court. Our 2005 opinion on interlocutory appeal held that Jacobs had a property interest and could continue to hold the policies. Jacobs v. Hilliard, 829 N.E.2d 629 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. Thereafter, on January 31, 2007, the trial court granted Jacobs' motion for summary Judgment, allowing to him retain the policies. Bonita appealed, and we affirmed.. Hilliard v. Jacobs, 874 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind.Ct. App.2007), trans. denied, cert. de*696nied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 287, 172 L.Ed.2d 150 (2008). Subsequently, the trial court granted Jacobs statutory interest on the policies proceeds-aceruing from January 31, 2007.
Here, the subject of this long dispute is certain insurance policies, ie., contracts. These contracts have face values in specific sums certain. The court was asked to determine who rightfully owned the policies and was entitled to the proceeds. Therefore, I would find that such a determination, on these facts, constituted a money judgment in favor of the prevailing party. Moreover, I find that the foregoing history established, pursuant to our 2007 opinion, id., that as of the January 31, 2007 trial court order granting summary judgment to Jacobs, he was the prevailing party and entitled to the proceeds.
In other words, the facts of this case have long dictated certainty in the amount of the judgment, to wit: the face values of the insurance policies. Accordingly, I would find the order of that date to be a money judgment.