ILNews

Court: Official can take office once bonded

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Elected public officials who haven't secured bond by the date they are to take office can begin their elected position once they have obtained the bond, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

At issue in Tom Shetler Sr. and Suzan Nicholson v. Linda K. Durham, No. 82A01-0706-CV-273, is whether Durham can hold office as elected trustee of Knight Township even though she failed to secure bond by her official start date.

Durham was elected trustee in November 2006 and met with the incumbent trustee and his chief deputy, Donald Boerner. Boerner agreed to also be Durham's chief deputy and began the process of obtaining the bond required by Indiana Code Section 5-4-1-9 for officials.

When Durham took office on Jan. 1, 2007, and was given the oath of office, she still did not have bond because there was an issue in obtaining it while Durham was in the midst of Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. In late January 2007, Durham was forced to relinquish the keys to the trustee's office until she was able to get the bond.

The Knight Township Board passed a resolution in February 2007 that Durham could not serve as trustee and is barred from taking office because she failed to get the bond before her term began, pursuant to I.C. 5-4-1-9. Durham finally received bond Feb. 16, 2007, which bonded her from Feb. 1, 2007, to Feb. 1, 2008.

When the board failed to recognize her as trustee once she was bonded, Durham filed for declaratory judgment, which the trial court found in her favor.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision, finding I.C. 5-4-1-9 does not bar an elected official from taking office once they have received bond, even if they did not have it by the date their term was to start.

The section includes the sentence, "If the officer fails to give the bond before that time, the officer may not take office." The board argued this prevents any elected official from taking office if they fail to obtain the bond before their start date.

Prior to 1980, when the current wording of the statute took effect, the statute said if an official did not acquire the bond within 10 days after taking office, the office "shall be vacant." However, the Indiana Supreme Court held that if there was a delay in obtaining the bond and the elected person was not at fault for the delay, the person will not be deemed to have abandoned the office.

"We believe that the supreme court's holding, which applied to a form of the statute that was more mandatory in nature than the current form of the statute, which is devoid of the reference to vacancy or forfeiture, is still applicable," wrote Senor Judge George B. Hoffman Jr. As such, Durham is not required to give up her office.
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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT