ILNews

General Assembly, Supreme Court ponder big changes for small claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A national nonprofit organization has been tasked with a fresh study of Marion County’s troubled township small claims court system, while a bill that passed the General Assembly has implications for small claims courts around the state.

Lawmakers adopted House Enrolled Act 1347 that included numerous tweaks of clerk duties and court administration matters. It also calls for the legislative Commission on Courts to study small claims courts, looking at administration, venue and distribution of resources in the courts, as well as the jurisdictional limit of small claims actions. Small claims disputes currently are capped by statute at $6,000.

Gov. Mike Pence signed HEA 1347 March 24. The bill also includes language regarding income garnishments that could impact parties in small claims actions. Those provisions include:

• Reducing the maximum allowable garnishment from 25 percent to as little as 10 percent of income based on a showing of good cause.

• Requiring a judge, after holding a hearing once a judgment debtor fails to comply with an agreed order, to order any non-excluded property, income or profits applied to satisfy the judgment.
 

smallclaims01apb-15col.jpg The National Center for State Courts is studying township small claims courts in Marion County. Franklin Township Court, shown here, is one of the nine venues. (IL File Photo)

• Outlining how courts may cancel garnishment orders in favor of third parties in certain situations.

The bill also relieves clerks in all courts of the obligation to notify a garnishee when a judgment has been satisfied.

The small claims language in the bill was grafted from Senate Bill 366 that passed the Senate but stalled in the House of Representatives. SB 366 also would have created an administrator for the Marion County Small Claims Courts chosen from among the nine township court judges, but that provision was stripped out of HB 1347, leaving no language in the bill specific to Marion County’s township courts.

That disappointed bill author Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, who said he’s hopeful the proposal for an administrator will return next year. “The intent was simply to allow the small claims courts to be self-managed and out of the governance of the Circuit Court,” Schneider said.

“I think it’s important to allow the courts themselves, just like Superior courts do and Circuit courts do, to elect from among themselves an administrative judge. I think they’ve got a better handle on how they manage their courts.”

Authority over the township courts currently is vested with Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg, who has presided over rule changes and reforms instituted in the wake of national media attention on the courts. Well-documented problems included large-volume filers accused of forum shopping to find venues that catered to them and numerous people sued who had never stepped foot in Marion County.

Rosenberg believes the small claims courts could use an administrator, but he also sees a need remaining for a countywide oversight function, whether through Marion Circuit or Superior Court.

“We should come up with a governing structure that reflects this is a township function, but there is a countywide role,” he said.

Township trustees and advisory boards want their courts to generate case-filing fees, a portion of which is revenue for the townships. That’s been at the root of some of the courts’ problems. “Some of that has been at the expense of a fair and open system,” Rosenberg said.

“Because of ‘township tunnel vision,’ so to speak, you get varying policies and practices throughout the county,” he said. “What we need is uniformity.”

A task force headed by Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Court of Appeals Senior Judge Betty Barteau released a report in 2012 that recommended an overhaul of township courts’ practices and recommended options for restructuring the courts. One option was to place the township courts under the purview of Marion Superior Court administration.

If the Commission on Courts or another legislative study committee takes up small claims issues this summer, it could do so at about the time that findings may be released from a fresh study of Marion County’s township courts.

John Doerner, principal court management consultant with the National Center for State Courts, is examining changes that took effect in the township courts at the beginning of the year as part of a $30,000 study funded by the Indiana Supreme Court Division of Court Administration. The study was ordered in January, and Doerner recently visited several township courts. He hopes to speak with all nine township judges.

“One open question at this point is the impact of the venue rule change that went into effect in January,” Doerner said. That rule change stipulated that cases could be filed only in the township where a party lives or works, or in the township where the disputed transaction or occurrence took place. “We’re looking at data over the past several years as well,” he said.

Doerner hopes the NCSC study will be able to discern the impact of the rule change, and he hopes it also may be able to predict future filing volume. That could lead to recommendations for reorganizing the courts to best serve users.

“If the quality of the data is of a sort that it seems logical to make some suggestions as to where the courts should be located, maybe we can go down that route,” he said.

David Remondini, chief deputy executive director for the Division of State Court Administration, said the Supreme Court authorized the study in an effort to improve the small claims experience.

“It has amazed me how much detail (Doerner) has gone into,” Remondini said. “He asked for quite a bit of data from us, and he had many meetings while he was here in Indianapolis for five days.

“We really feel he got a pretty good picture of the landscape.”

Rosenberg hopes the study results in “very practical steps outlined for how we should fund and staff the township court system.”

Fixing the Marion County Township Courts was among one of the few requests Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson had for lawmakers in his State of the Judiciary address in January.

“Our present system has been the subject of ridicule,” he said. “Local leadership and changes in court rules, however, can only scratch the surface. Systemic change is imperative, and this requires legislative action.”

But Schneider sees little need for broader reforms of the Indianapolis courts. He’s open to perhaps raising the jurisdiction of small claims courts from the current $6,000 limit, one of the more sweeping proposals expected to be referred to the study committee.

“Anything we can take off and lighten up the workload of some of our higher courts would be better, and certainly give people an opportunity to seek justice without getting into serious legal debt,” Schneider said.

“The general public has pretty good access to the judicial system” through the township courts, he said. “A lot of people would rather work through an issue in a small claims court setting than go to the next level.

“I’m a big advocate of small claims courts as we have them in Marion County. I think it works, and I think people receive justice out of that,” he said.•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT