Real estate, retail

Property Lines
real estate blog moderator

Schouten joined IBJ as a reporter in 2006 after stints at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and the Arizona Republic. He covered education in Arizona and politics and hurricanes in Florida. A graduate of Southport High School and Indiana University, Schouten hosts a real estate blog on that twice has been named the nation’s best among business journals by the Alliance of Area Business Publications. Schouten also has been honored for his body of work at IBJ. Outside the office, he serves on the community relations board for Noble of Indiana and mentors youth through Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Indiana.

(317) 472-5370

Follow Cory on Twitter:


Recent Articles

Jury returns guilty verdicts in Indy Land Bank case

March 19, 2015
A federal jury on Wednesday evening returned guilty verdicts on eight felony counts including wire fraud and bribery against Reggie Walton, a former Indianapolis city employee who managed the Indy Land Bank.

Former Indy Land Bank chief grilled over inconsistent testimony

March 17, 2015
Former Indy Land Bank director Reggie Walton opted to take the stand in his own defense in federal court this week, and prosecutors used the opportunity to use his words against him.

Indy Land Bank trial could turn on government wiretaps

March 4, 2015
Reginald T. Walton is guilty of "very poor judgment" and "ethics violations," and also "did a pretty good job concealing" his involvement in private real estate partnerships during his tenure leading the Indy Land Bank, but he's not guilty of any crime, his attorney argued in federal court Wednesday.

OneAmerica pays $800K over fraud orchestrated by ex-employee

November 12, 2014
OneAmerica Securities Inc. has agreed to pay the state $805,000 to settle allegations it failed to supervise a former employee who helped orchestrate an $8.9 million Ponzi scheme in Ohio, Kentucky and southeastern Indiana.

Church accuses JPMorgan of mismanagement, self-dealing

August 14, 2014
Christ Church Cathedral in Indianapolis has filed a federal lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, alleging the bank's "intentional mismanagement" and "self-dealing" led to $13 million in losses in church trust accounts endowed in the 1970s by Eli Lilly Jr.

How the Brizzi public-corruption case unraveled

November 5, 2013
Federal authorities suffered a near-complete defeat in their efforts to prosecute the players in an unusual real estate deal in Elkhart, a setback that ultimately doomed an ambitious public-corruption case targeting former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

Judge sentences attorney Page to probation, fine

November 4, 2013
Attorney and real estate developer Paul J. Page will serve two years of probation and pay a $10,000 fine for concealing the source of a $362,000 down payment on his purchase of a state-leased office building in Elkhart.

Feds charge 5 in Indy Land Bank kickback scheme

May 21, 2013
Federal prosecutors have charged two Indianapolis city employees in the Department of Metropolitan Development and three others in a scheme involving cash kickbacks on the sale of properties in the Indy Land Bank.

Former Marion County deputy prosecutor agrees to plead guilty to bribery

May 13, 2013
The top deputy under former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has agreed to plead guilty to a federal charge for his role in the early release of a woman convicted in a murder-for-hire scheme.

Fraud victim files civil suit against ex-councilor

February 11, 2013
An Indianapolis physician who lost $1.7 million in a fraud scheme orchestrated in part by former Democratic City-County Councilor Paul C. Bateman Jr. has sued Bateman and two associates in Marion Circuit Court.
View All Articles
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?