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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT