ILNews

Suits in triple-slaying proceeds case move ahead

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former Indiana state trooper shouldn't be allowed to claim all $626,000 in insurance and estate proceeds from the deaths of his wife and two children 14 years ago, even though he was acquitted of their murders, attorneys representing the family members argue in civil lawsuits.

Attorneys for the parents of David Camm's late wife filed the suits and argue that some of the money should go toward the family's legal fees for attorney Nick Stein. Stein has represented Frank and Janice Renn since their daughter, Kim Renn, and grandchildren, Brad, 7, and Jill, 5, were slain in September 2000 in their southern Indiana home.

Juries convicted Camm twice on murder charges in the killings. Both convictions were overturned on appeal and Camm was acquitted last fall in the slayings following his third trial.

Camm lawyer David Mosley said during a Tuesday meeting of attorneys for the two sides in Floyd Circuit Judge Terrence Cody's chambers that the money should go to Camm alone.

The Renns and Stein "need to wake up and smell the coffee," Mosley said after Tuesday's meeting, during which three different cases related to three victims' estates were discussed, The Courier-Journal reported. Camm "was acquitted. He did not harm Kim, Brad and Jill," Mosley added.

Stein said Tuesday that if Camm was responsible for the killings, he is not eligible to receive the funds, the News and Tribune reported.

"Being acquitted doesn't mean you didn't do it, it just means that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt you did," he said. "We feel he's responsible for his family's deaths or there wouldn't be any more litigation."

The civil cases involve how to distribute $167,403 held in certificates of deposit in the three estates, and $458,672 from three life insurance policies.

Two suits involving some of the benefits are pending in Cody's court while a third centered on proceeds from two policies related to Kim Camm's job at the former Aegon USA is pending in U.S. District Court in New Albany.

During a recent status conference, Federal Magistrate Judge William G. Hussman Jr. indicated that settling all of the cases together may now be best, Stein said.

He set a settlement conference for Nov. 14.

Even after the civil cases are resolved, it won't end all the litigation spawned by the case. Camm filed notice in April that he intends to sue a string of Floyd County officials for damages stemming from his wrongful convictions. He's seeking $30 million.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT