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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT