COA: findings don't support attorney fees

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded a case today involving attorney fees - the appellate court questioned whether the Indiana High School Athletic Association was trying to dissuade appeals by athletes - because the findings of the case currently don't support the judgment.

In Indiana High School Athletic Association Inc. v. Gregory S. Schafer and Shane Schafer, No. 37A03-0811-CV-560, the appellate court considered the award of attorney fees to the Schafers from a 1991 case in which Shane Schafer appealed the IHSAA's decision he was ineligible to play basketball during the 1991-1992 school year. Schafer became ill during his junior year in 1990 and withdrew from school shortly after the end of the regular basketball season in 1991. His high school allowed him to repeat his entire junior year in the fall 1991. He asked the IHSAA to not count the 1990-1991 school year against him, which the organization denied. The trial court eventually granted Schafer's motion for declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the rules IHSAA applied to him and enjoined the IHSAA from ruling him ineligible or punishing his high school. The trial court concluded the IHSAA rules were overly broad, arbitrary, and capricious.

The trial court granted Shafer's request for attorney fees on the grounds that during the declaratory judgment period the IHSAA continued to litigate a defense that was frivolous, unreasonable, and capricious.

The appellate court determined that the record before it didn't allow it to uphold Shafer's award of attorney fees because the trial court's findings of fact don't support such a conclusion, wrote Judge Melissa May. The judges declined to hold the litigation as necessarily frivolous or unreasonable just because an administrative rule that is the subject of the litigation is eventually determined to be arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional, she wrote.

"We are unable to affirm the award of attorney fees because the trial court's findings do not support its judgment. But our result on that narrow ground must not be interpreted to condone IHSAA's actions ..." the judge continued.

The appellate court has disapproved of similar litigation tactics employed in the past by the IHSAA, with the judge citing Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Vasario, 726 N.E.2d 325, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), and now-Chief Judge John Baker's dissent from that case.

"The case before us raises the same concerns that the IHSAA is trying 'to send a message to parents and student athletes in Indiana about the great risk and expense involved in challenging a ruling, and thus discourage them from appealing a denial of eligibility,'" Judge May wrote regarding the instant case.

The Court of Appeals remanded so the trial court could further consider and explain its judgment with regard to its conclusion on the attorney fee issue.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.