ILNews

Judges uphold contempt order against attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Morgan Circuit judge had jurisdiction to order a Unionville attorney to pay $75,000 to the county clerk after finding the attorney in contempt, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

In the case In Re: The Order of Contempt Against Craig Benson, Martinsville Depot, Inc., and SBS Enterprises, Inc. v. Co-Alliance, LLP, No. 55A04-1010-CC-646, Craig Benson appealed the trial court’s finding that he was in contempt of court orders by distributing funds in 2010 that were to be held in his account. Martinsville Depot Inc. and SBS Enterprises were represented by Benson in a complaint filed by Co-Alliance seeking money for fuel that it had provided to Depot. The court ordered that proceeds from sales of assets from the defendants should be held until the court decides what should happen to those proceeds.

A sale happened in February 2010, and funds were deposited into Benson’s escrow account. Despite the court order, Benson distributed $75,000 to creditors and himself for attorney fees. After the distributions, Benson filed a motion for partial relief to be allowed to distribute some funds, but that was denied.

Several months later, SBS and Depot filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and proceedings against SBS and Depot were stayed by the trial court. Co-Alliance then filed an unverified motion for contempt against Benson, and later filed a similar amended verified motion for contempt. The trial court found Benson in contempt and ordered he pay the $75,000 to the Morgan County Clerk and that he be jailed until he paid the money. He paid the amount owed to the clerk.

Benson attempted to have the contempt petition dismissed because the original contempt petition was unverified. It appears the parties decided to have the trial judge rule on the original motion, but even if the court erred by proceeding on this motion, any error didn’t affect Benson’s substantial rights, ruled the appellate court. As a result of the amended contempt motion, the trial court had before it almost identical verified allegations against Benson, so the essential purpose of the verification requirement was satisfied, wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

Also, the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction to order the payment of $75,000 for contempt even though the bankruptcy court had previously stayed the proceedings. The money the trial court ordered him to pay wasn’t proceeds from the defendants’ sale and property of the bankruptcy estate, but was Benson’s personal money and it was damages resulting from his contempt. The funds at issue here aren’t subject to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, wrote the judge.

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT