ILNews

General Assembly wraps up on time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 2011 session of the Indiana General Assembly ended on schedule despite the weeks-long walkout by House Democrats. Now, bills impacting Indiana’s courts and legal community make their way to the governor’s desk.

House Enrolled Act 1266, which originally dealt with creating a unified Clark Circuit court, became a more expansive bill as the session progressed. Language from other bills was added to HEA 1266, including the establishment of Madison and Henry courts into unified Circuit courts. The changes become effective July 1; for Clark County, the changes take effect Jan. 1, 2012.

HEA 1266 also changes how Lake Superior County judges are chosen. Now, instead of being elected, those judges will be nominated by the Lake County Superior Court judicial nomination commission and appointed by the governor. These judges will be up for retention every six years.

The bill also ends the mandatory retirement age of 70 for Superior and County court judges. This language is also in Senate Enrolled Act 463, which passed out of the Senate after a conference committee. As of Indiana Lawyer daily deadline, both bills had yet to be signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.  

House Enrolled Actl 1153 has expanded the types of people who may participate in problem-solving court programs and when and how a problem-solving court may end someone’s participating in the program. The bill says that parents or guardians of a juvenile accepted into a problem-solving court program is financially responsible for court service fees and chemical testing expenses, or other fees and expenses assessed against the juvenile. HEA 1153 also includes details on the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee. The bill is ready for enrollment as of Indiana Lawyer daily deadline.

Senate Enrolled Act 582 deals with settlement conferences in residential foreclosures and would make some of the Mortgage Foreclosure Best Practices part of state statute. In January, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to promulgate an order requiring all trial courts to observe and enforce the practices. In February, the Indiana Supreme Court began accepting comment on the proposed best practices for mortgage foreclosure cases to decide whether all or some of the best practices should be made into rules or remain advisory only. Comment is still being accepted through May 30.   

The budget bill passed by legislators includes the automated record-keeping fee, which was originally introduced in SB 301. Unlike the original bill that called for increasing the fee – which would pay for the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee’s implementation of a statewide case management system – the budget calls for the $7 fee to decrease to $5 after June 30, 2011. The budget also calls for increasing the public defense administration fee to $5 from $3.

The legislation also says a salary increase for full-time judges and appellate judges that would otherwise occur under Indiana Code Section 33-38-5-8.1 during the fiscal years of 2011 and 2012 must be approved by the chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. The governor had not signed the budget legislation as of the newspaper’s deadline.

Gov. Daniels has already signed several other bills including: SEA 169 on probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers; HEA 1215, which allows for a protected person to attend a hearing through the use of closed-circuit television; and SEA 495, which prohibits a school corporation from using money received from the state to bring or join an action against the state. The law does allow for using state money if the school is challenging an adverse decision by a state agency, board, or commission.

To see what legislation the governor has before him or has signed, visit the governor’s Bill Watch page.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT