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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT