ILNews

Greenwood attorney Joe Van Valer dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana legal community has lost a former prosecutor and private attorney who, during his five decades of practice, established himself as a state and national expert in realty and development law.

Greenwood attorney Joe N. Van Valer, 75, died Sunday at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Franklin. The 1963 Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate was the founding and senior partner at Van Valer Law Firm, located in a restored Civil War-era building in downtown Greenwood. The firm specializes in land use, development, and construction law.

In private practice, Van Valer represented numerous developers who built new homes in Greenwood during the last few decades. His influence extended beyond his city and county. He helped draft laws creating the impact fees that developers pay to fund new parks and roads as well as a law that made the state one of the most consumer-friendly for implied home warranties that protect homebuyers from any construction defects discovered within 10 years. Van Valer also lobbied for federal legislation that allowed private insurance companies to insure home warranties.

All four of his children, including former Johnson Superior Judge Kim Van Valer, worked at the family firm as soon as each was old enough to hold a job and follow instructions. After leaving the bench in 2009, Kim returned and remains practicing at the firm.

After a stint in public office, Van Valer practiced at predecessor firms such as Van Valer & Williams. He served as the Johnson County prosecutor from 1967 to 1974, and it was that role that gave him an appearance in the late 1980s in the first episode of “America’s Most Wanted.”

City and police officials said Van Valer was the first prosecutor to train officers on how to handle evidence and testify in court. He also served as attorney for the Greenwood Community Schools and was actively involved in many community projects, carrying on the work of his parents, Ginger and Dick Van Valer. His mother was the first volunteer director of the city’s chamber of commerce while his father was a volunteer fire chief and newspaper editor.

Those remembering Van Valer say he was proud of his publications and the teaching he did through the years on topics such as farm estate planning, wealth management for closely held corporations, and the impact of interstate land sales. Van Valer received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Johnson County Builders Association, as well as many other civic and development and legal awards during his career. He was a member of the board of directors of the Home Warranty Corporation of Washington D.C. for more than five years, and he also served on the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis governing board since 1975.

A memorial calling is scheduled for 3 to 8 p.m. Thursday at Wilson St. Pierre Funeral Service and Crematory in Greenwood. Memorial contributions can be made to the Johnson County Humane Society or the Joe N. Van Valer Pre-Law Fund in the advancement office at Franklin College, where he spent his undergraduate years.
 

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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT