ILNews

Lake County fee bill moves forward

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The House Judiciary Committee met this morning to consider five bills that included assessing a $10 fee for Lake County court filings, which would be used to fund a consolidated judicial center.

Voting on the Lake County legislation, the committee voted 7-3 to send House Bill 1435 on to the full House for consideration. Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, proposed the bill, which would establish a fund aimed at financing, constructing, and equipping a Lake County judicial center in or near Crown Point. The fund for a consolidated judicial center comes on the heels of a 2007 study recommending many ways that local government could be more efficient.

If enacted, a $10 fee would be charged on any filing in Lake's Circuit or Superior courts, and in which a person is convicted of an offense, required to pay a pretrial diversion fee, or found to have committed an infraction or ordinance violation.

Lake Superior Judge Diane Kavadias Schneider wrote a letter supporting the bill, and Lake County Bar Association past president Gerald Bishop spoke in favor of the plan. He described this as a "bricks and mortar" bill that's a "no brainer" for the General Assembly, since it can help local officials self-fund a judicial center and become more efficient overall.

Bishop said attorneys must often travel to various courthouses in the county, frequently for hearings that may last only 15 minutes but aren't able to be done by telephone conference because the courts can't afford the equipment to make that option a reality, he said. As a result, the costs trickle down to clients.

With more than 100,000 cases filed annually in Lake County, this $10 fee could amount to $1 million for a new centralized judicial center, Bishop said.

Some lawmakers hesitated, voicing concerns about why this type of construction isn't being funded by a county action rather than a state law - and how county officials have historically not opted to hike taxes locally as others have done throughout Indiana to pay for court renovations or building projects.

Rep. Wes Culver, R-Goshen, noted his concern about allowing this money to be used to renovate existing buildings, which could postpone a new project indefinitely. Bishop responded that prohibiting that would stall change, as a new judicial center is many years off.

Ultimately, the bill got enough support from committee members to move on.

Other bills that passed out of committee after discussion were: HB 1175 that sets up a structure for protecting victims' rights in juvenile criminal cases; HB 1062 would allow a court to waive the two-year wrongful death statute of limitations in murder cases; HB 1077 creates special tool liens; HB 1578 amends state statute on GPS monitoring and restraining orders.

The full House met this afternoon and had multiple court and legal system-related bills to consider, including a measure on second reading calling for the election - rather than merit-selection and retention - of St. Joseph Superior judges. Indiana Lawyer's Statehouse Report has a rundown of relevant legislation and you can also read more coverage in the Feb. 18-March 3, 2009, issue of IL.

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. 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