ILNews

Former auditor wins appeal on attorney fee issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court decided a case seven years ago but left for another day the answer to a question about governmental attorney fees, and now that specific issue has found its way to an appeal before the state’s second-highest appellate court.

A decision on that issue comes today in Clinton County, et al. v. Jacqueline R. Clements, et al., No. 54A01-1008-PL-407, which involves the former Clinton County auditor who served in that role between August 2004 and November 2008 and explored software changes for the county property tax management systems.

Several companies offered proposals for the system software, and at one point a dispute arose over the estimated costs for the legislative changes, resulting in the county terminating a contract with one of the companies. The county in June 2009 filed an amended complaint against Clements and the company Nikish involving breach of contract, fraud, negligence, actual fraud, and intentional interference with contractual relations. The complaint also included a civil action by a crime victim against both Nikish and Clements, and claims involved Clements knowingly misrepresenting to the county what the system changes would cost.

Clements filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that she had governmental immunity, and the trial court agreed on the basis that county officials didn’t prove that any intentional misrepresentation existed to override that immunity. The court also found she was immune from liability because she’d been acting within the scope of her employment.

But the trial court denied her motion for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs, based on Indiana Code 34-13-3-5e(e), which states that “the governmental entity shall provide counsel for and pay all costs and fees incurred by or on behalf of an employee in defense of a claim or suit for a loss occurring because of acts or omissions within the scope of the employee’s employment, regardless of whether the employee can or cannot be held personally liability for the loss.”

In denying that motion, the trial court relied on State v. Evans,  810 N.E. 2d 335 (Ind. 204) and found that state statute ambiguous and intended to apply only where a third party claimant filed a claim against a governmental employee personally, and concluded that “an absurd result would occur if it accepted Clements’s interpretation of the statute.”

The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling on the governmental immunity aspect, but disagreed on the attorney fee issue. It said Evans didn’t go far enough to address this specific issue raised by Clements on whether the statute would afford reimbursement to a defendant who prevails.

“Although our supreme court concluded in Evans that it would be absurd to require the Attorney General to finance both sides of the litigation against the prosecutor accused of misappropriating funds during the litigation, it specifically left open the possibility of reimbursing an employee who prevails in such an action,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

Statute enacted following that Evans holding in 2004 shows the Legislature’s intent to reimburse an officer or employee wrongly accused by the governmental entity in certain civil suits, the appellate panel found.

“Where, as here, a county has filed an unsuccessful and highly questionable action against its former auditor, it would be unjust to deny her request for reimbursement of her attorney fees. We conclude that Clements is entitled to reimbursement of her attorney fees under a plain reading of Indiana Code Section 34-13-2-5(e),” the appellate panel wrote, finding the trial court abused its discretion on that issue.

With that holding, the appellate panel has remanded for a calculation of attorney fees owed to Clements.

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