ILNews

3 task force proposals address issues in Marion County Small Claims courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Marion County Small Claims Task Force created by the Indiana Supreme Court has released its report outlining its investigation into problems within the county’s small claims courts. The report proposes three ways to address the problems, including incorporating the small claims courts into Marion Superior Court.

The task force, made up of Indiana Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau, found “serious problems in the management and procedures” of the small claims courts. At a press conference Tuesday, Baker said the concerns surrounding practices in Marion County Small Claims courts could be taking place in other parts of the state, but the report only looked at Marion County. Marion County is unique in Indiana as it’s the only county that has its small claims courts funded by the townships instead of the county or state.

The task force was created this year in response to allegations, including that debt-collection creditors engage in forum shopping among the township courts, these creditors and other high-volume filers receive special treatment in the small claims courts, and that small claims judges are not always present in the courtroom for court proceedings.

After a series of public hearings held in February and March, the task force uncovered “significant and widespread problems,” according to the report, including some township trustees interfering with the operation of the courts and creditors’ attorneys having special access to or special relationships with some of the township court personnel.

The report outlines three potential plans to address these issues.

Plan A would move the small claims court into Marion Superior Court. Plan B would leave the courts as township courts, but they would undergo reform to make them independent from township trustees and improve access to justice. Plan C suggests changes that should be made regardless of whether plans A or B are adopted. The first two plans would require statutory changes; Plan C could be adopted without statutory or rule changes.

Baker said they proposed three plans because much of Plan A has already been suggested but never implemented by the Legislature, and they want to make sure some reform happens. Plan B was suggested by the small claims judges.

“We think Plan C is very good. It will have a big impact on how the court is operated,” Barteau said.

Plan C outlines court management and procedure reforms. It requires court employees be easily identifiable by litigants, dictates when the judge shall appear before the litigants, and mandates settlement agreements receive judicial review before approval. Under this plan, township judges would be provided consistent continuing legal education opportunities and court forms would be uniform and avoid legalese.

Litigants would be advised at the earliest point possible in the case about their right to request a change in venue. Plan C also suggested the creation of a small claims clinic at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law to allow law students to represent defendants.

Under plans A and B, the judges would become full-time judicial officers and be subject to the public reporting requirements for income from extrajudicial activities, and all appeals would go directly to the Court of Appeals. In Plan A, Marion County would fund the small claims division created under the Superior Court and the small claims division’s jurisdiction would include traffic infractions.

Under Plan B, townships would continue to be responsible for funding the courts, but the courts would create their own budgets that would be approved by the township boards, and the courts would maintain sole control over all court funds. The plan also dictates that the Supreme Court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure should adopt a rule on township court venue to end forum shopping so that the defendant must be sued in the township where he or she lives or where the transaction or incident occurred.

The report was sent to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which has the option to take any action on these proposals. The report and appendix are available on the court’s website.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT