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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT