ILNews

AG sues to recover $18,000 from LaGrange County clerk

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has filed a civil suit against Beverly S. Elliott, LaGrange County clerk, seeking more than $18,000 in misappropriated funds. Elliot is also facing criminal charges following an investigation by the State Board of Accounts and the Indiana State Police.

A June certified audit report by the State Board of Accounts found that from September to December of 2008, the clerk’s office let people pay court fines and fees by credit card, but more than $6,000 of those payments weren’t deposited into the clerk’s office bank account. Elliott also paid appraisals costing $1,600 out of the wrong account. She was supposed to use funds from a recently closed trust fund to pay the costs, but instead she overpaid the recipient by using the wrong account, according to the report.

There have also been shortages in bank accounts and a discrepancy between the clerk’s office receipts and bank accounts.

Funds misappropriated, diverted, or unaccounted for are the clerk’s personal responsibility. The attorney general’s office serves as a collection agent for the state when the State Board of Accounts certifies an audit report. Zoeller filed the suit Tuesday in LaGrange Superior Court 1.

Zoeller is also going after Auto-Owners Insurance of Indianapolis, which issued a $60,000 surety bond to cover the county clerk, to recover the funds. He filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would freeze Elliott’s assets. A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for 11 a.m. Friday.

Elliot also is charged with four counts of Class D felony official misconduct, said special prosecutor Tom Wilson, who filed the charges Monday in LaGrange County.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT