ILNews

Bill proposes modest Marion County small claims reforms

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Modest reforms to the derided Marion County township small claims courts are proposed in a bill scheduled to get a committee hearing Wednesday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear Senate Bill 366, which would create a new oversight position for the county’s township small claims courts, which are unique in Indiana. The courts have been criticized for practices perceived to favor heavy-volume debt-collection filers, allegations of forum shopping and other problems.

Legislation authored by Indianapolis Republican senators R. Michael Young and Scott Schneider would create a position of small claims administrative judge which would be elected by the nine township judges from among their ranks. The administrative judge would be charged with court supervision duties that currently fall to the Marion County Circuit Court judge.

The bill also would add language that could reduce wage garnishments to satisfy judgments. Upon a showing of cause, the minimum garnishment could be as little as 10 percent of a person’s disposable earnings. I.C. 24-4.5-5-105 currently allows 25 percent of disposable earnings to be garnisheed to satisfy judgments.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson urged lawmakers to take steps to reform the courts during his State of the Judiciary Address earlier this month.

“Our present system has been the subject of ridicule by the Wall Street Journal, and local newspaper and television reporters launched investigations into the system,” Dickson told a joint session of the House and Senate on Jan. 15.

While he noted some local rules changes and needed reforms followed a report from a task force led by Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau, Dickson told lawmakers, “Systemic change is imperative, and this requires legislative action.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider SB 366 at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Room 130 of the Statehouse.





 

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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT