Robert R. Krilich v. Soltesz et al
Annotate this Case FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
MICHAEL T. TERWILLIGER PATRICK B. McEUEN
Hinshaw & Culbertson Singleton, Crist, Austgen & Sears
Schererville, Indiana Munster, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ROBERT R. KRILICH, ) ) Appellant-Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 45A04-0202-CV-57 ) SOLTESZ/BRANT DEVELOPMENT ) COMPANY, A Florida General Partnership, and ) RAYMOND T. SOLTESZ, A General Partner, and ) WILLIAM J. BRANT, JR., A General Partner, ) ) Appellees-Defendants. )
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT 5
The Honorable James J. Richards, Judge
Cause No. 45D05-0001-MI-11
October 10, 2002
OPINION ON REHEARING
MATHIAS, Judge
We issued our opinion in this appeal on July 9, 2002. On August 6, 2002, Brant filed a Petition for Rehearing arguing that our court misstated material facts concerning Krilich's Florida judgment. In our opinion, we stated that a certified copy of the 1990 Florida judgment bore the name and address of Brant's attorney. Slip Op. p. 3. In his Petition for Rehearing, Brant states that the Florida judgment bore the name and address of Krilich's attorney, not Brant's. However, in the statement of facts in his Appellant's Brief, Krilich stated that the 1990 judgment bore the name and address of defendant's counsel. Brant was the defendant in the Florida case. In Brant's Appellee's Brief, Brant stated that he agreed with Krilich's statement of facts. Having reviewed the record, we note that the 1990 judgment does contain the name of an attorney, but it is unclear from the record whose attorney it was. Due to this confusion, the language in question should be stricken from our opinion.
Therefore, we grant Brant's Petition for Rehearing solely for the limited purpose of striking the language on page three of our opinion that reads "and it bore the name and address of Brant's attorney."
In all other respects, Brant's Petition for Rehearing is denied.
BARNES, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.