ILNews

Court: Official can take office once bonded

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Elected public officials who haven't secured bond by the date they are to take office can begin their elected position once they have obtained the bond, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

At issue in Tom Shetler Sr. and Suzan Nicholson v. Linda K. Durham, No. 82A01-0706-CV-273, is whether Durham can hold office as elected trustee of Knight Township even though she failed to secure bond by her official start date.

Durham was elected trustee in November 2006 and met with the incumbent trustee and his chief deputy, Donald Boerner. Boerner agreed to also be Durham's chief deputy and began the process of obtaining the bond required by Indiana Code Section 5-4-1-9 for officials.

When Durham took office on Jan. 1, 2007, and was given the oath of office, she still did not have bond because there was an issue in obtaining it while Durham was in the midst of Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. In late January 2007, Durham was forced to relinquish the keys to the trustee's office until she was able to get the bond.

The Knight Township Board passed a resolution in February 2007 that Durham could not serve as trustee and is barred from taking office because she failed to get the bond before her term began, pursuant to I.C. 5-4-1-9. Durham finally received bond Feb. 16, 2007, which bonded her from Feb. 1, 2007, to Feb. 1, 2008.

When the board failed to recognize her as trustee once she was bonded, Durham filed for declaratory judgment, which the trial court found in her favor.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision, finding I.C. 5-4-1-9 does not bar an elected official from taking office once they have received bond, even if they did not have it by the date their term was to start.

The section includes the sentence, "If the officer fails to give the bond before that time, the officer may not take office." The board argued this prevents any elected official from taking office if they fail to obtain the bond before their start date.

Prior to 1980, when the current wording of the statute took effect, the statute said if an official did not acquire the bond within 10 days after taking office, the office "shall be vacant." However, the Indiana Supreme Court held that if there was a delay in obtaining the bond and the elected person was not at fault for the delay, the person will not be deemed to have abandoned the office.

"We believe that the supreme court's holding, which applied to a form of the statute that was more mandatory in nature than the current form of the statute, which is devoid of the reference to vacancy or forfeiture, is still applicable," wrote Senor Judge George B. Hoffman Jr. As such, Durham is not required to give up her office.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT