Case ends after 26 years

July 15, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
After more than a quarter century, a judge out in Montana finally ruled on a dispute over the ownership of natural gas leases.

It didn’t take 26 years for a resolution in the case because of countless appeals or court delays.

It was because the judge misplaced the file.

According to a few news sources and blogs about this case, retired District Judge Ronald McPhillips presided over Ayers v. Rubow in the early 1980s and apparently recently found the file in an old briefcase at home.

The judge retired after the case was submitted because of health reasons, which is the suspected reason for the extreme delay.

In a case that Ayers argued was potentially worth millions of dollars, how do you let a quarter century pass before the case is finally ruled on?

The attorney for Ayers said he finally gave up on it because he felt it was going nowhere. Judge McPhillips came out of retirement to make the ruling and decided Ayers didn’t prove his case.

If I filed a lawsuit in which I may be entitled to millions of dollars, you bet I’m going to stick with it, call the clerk’s office, my attorney, and anyone else I could to make sure it was moving through the system.

How did this not come to the judge’s attention sooner or any of the judges who took Judge McPhillips’ place in District Court? Why didn’t Ayers or the defendant file any grievances or seek help looking into the matter?

This is a pretty extreme delay in a case getting resolved, but these kinds of things happen in many courts. The misplacement of a file in a Marion County court was one of the reasons a Marion Superior judge was suspended without pay earlier this year. The missing file was in the case of a man wrongly convicted of rape.

Lessons to learn from this case: Keep better track of your case files and take meticulous notes. Judge McPhillips did, which allowed him to rule on the case after the Montana Supreme Court allowed him to do so. Also, follow up with the court and your attorney so you don’t have to wait 26 years for a resolution on your suit.

There’s no word on whether Ayers plans to appeal the ruling.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • What likely happened, in my estimation, is that the case settled out of court and nobody bothered to file a stipulation of dismissal. Hence, no parties to the litigation cared that no ruling was handed down, since they had already settled. If no stipulation of dismissal is filed with the court, court staff is unlikely to notice that the file is missing.

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
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT