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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT