ILNews

Judges define 'courthouse' for first time

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide if a courthouse means a particular building or may be any place that houses the trial courts. Their decision would impact a woman whose home was sold in a sheriff’s sale.

Claudette Gee’s home was ordered into a foreclosure sale in August 2009. During that time, three of Grant County’s four courts were relocated to temporary offices and a temporary courtroom because of repairs at the Grant County courthouse. The Grant County Sheriff’s department posted notice of the sheriff sales on a bulletin board located next to the door of the temporary courtroom. Notice of the sale involving Gee’s home wasn’t posted at the permanent courthouse.

Gee tried to get the sale set aside because she argued the sheriff’s office didn’t post notice of the sale “at the door of the courthouse” pursuant to Indiana Code Section 32-29-7-3(e). The trial court denied her motion to set aside and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Claudette Gee v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 27A02-1003-MF-304, the judges, noting that “courthouse” isn’t defined in the statute in question, relied on the Black’s Law Dictionary definition to determine that a courthouse is the building where judges convene to adjudicate disputes and administer justice. Thus, the statute applies to the temporary location.

“Significantly, however, Gee does not argue that the sheriff was required to post notice at both the Complex and the permanent courthouse,” wrote Judge Edward Najam. “We therefore do not consider whether Section 32-29-7-3(e) requires the sheriff to post notice at all functioning courthouses or just at one courthouse.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT