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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT