# Beach v. Beach

> Indiana Court of Appeals · November 7, 1994 · 642 N.E.2d 269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717978

## Case

- **Full name:** H. Stanley BEACH, Appellant, Respondent, v. Rose BEACH, Appellee-Petitioner,
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 7, 1994
- **Citations:** 642 N.E.2d 269; 1994 Ind. App. LEXIS 1570; 1994 WL 603241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barteau
- **Judges:** Sullivan, Barteau, Staton
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717978

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that where all of the required information was contained in or attached to the petition, the court would not elevate form' over substance
- declining to follow Burke and holding instead that an Indiana URESA support order cannot modify a foreign state’s support order

## Opinion text

BARTEAU, Judge,
concurring in result.
While I still believe, as I expressed in Burke v. Burke (1993), Ind.App., 617 N.E.2d 959 , that the intent in enacting the registration provision was to provide an additional remedy, and that modification by the registering court was contemplated, the majority of courts addressing this issue have held to the contrary and I will yield to their wisdom.
STATON, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717978. Public record. Not legal advice.