ILNews

Court won't remove trial judge in Simon case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Melvin Simon’s widow, finding that it doesn’t have jurisdiction to remove a Hamilton Superior judge from the case involving the late mall-magnate’s estate valued at more than $2 billion.

Bren Simon had petitioned the appeals court to remove Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes after he removed her as interim trustee over her late husband's estate and appointed former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm. She’d lost one appeal in April after the appellate court dismissed her arguments about her removal, but Simon also challenged the judge’s presiding over the case and making that decision in the first place.

In this appeal, she argued Hughes should have recused himself because he’d briefly hired two attorneys from Bingham McHale to represent him on his out-of-state drunk driving case, and that same firm represented Simon Property Group on related estate matters.

But in a 21-page decision Thursday, appellate Judges Edward Najam and Melissa May disagreed with Simon and dismissed the appeal. They determined that once Simon was removed as interim trustee, she lost the ability to prosecute any appeal and that ability fell to her appointed successor. They noted that Simon was not a party in her individual capacity in the trial court.

 “Accordingly, we hold that Bren lacks standing to maintain this appeal in either a representative capacity or an individual capacity. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal on the merits,” Najam wrote.

They relied on Weiland v. Scheuch, 123 Ind. App. 421, 422-23, 111 N.E.2d 664, 664 (1953), that found a personal representative can’t prosecute an appeal of the removal order after that person has already been removed . By extension, as in Simon’s case, the removed trustee can’t later appeal a collateral order such as the trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented and said the majority’s decision dismissing the interlocutory appeal is “a disservice to justice,” and that their entire operational premise is wrong. She found that Simon isn’t appealing Hughes’ removal order, but instead is appealing his earlier order in which he refused to recuse himself.

Riley pointed out that by removing someone as trustee and cutting off their standing to appeal, a trial court could effectively shield itself from judicial scrutiny by removing or dismissing a party seeking the trial court’s recusal.

“Based on the facts before us, I conclude that Bren has standing to bring this appeal as she is aggrieved by Judge Hughes' refusal to recuse himself,” she wrote, citing state statutes that allow for aggrieved parties to appeal a court decision. “In reaching this conclusion, the majority clearly affirmed Appellees’ argument which was raised as a red herring in their brief to obscure the pertinent issue before us. Unfortunately, the majority took the bait.”

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT