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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT