ILNews

Lawyer's report sounds latest alarm about Marion County Small Claims courts

Dave Stafford
August 14, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Problems with Marion County’s Small Claims courts are by now well-documented. After the Wall Street Journal took note of forum shopping, creditors’ cozy relationships with some courts and other lax practices, Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau issued a report advocating reform.

Jeffrey Boulden was familiar with such problems, having represented clients in those courts for years as a legal aid attorney. But he began noticing something he considered so egregious that he said he couldn’t ignore it: A company called Driver Solutions was getting default judgments in Warren Township Small Claims Court against out-of-state defendants who he said weren’t properly served notice they had been sued.

There were thousands of such judgments over a period of just over three years, he claims.

report-1col.jpg Attorney Jeffrey Boulden holds a copy of a report he compiled detailing alleged deficiencies in Driver Solutions cases filed in Franklin and Warren townships that he says should be voided. (IL Photo/ Dave Stafford

“Over a series of a couple of months in 2012, I discovered that Franklin Township was also entering default judgments without defendants being properly served,” Boulden said of the discovery that led him to pore over thousands of judgments, document his findings and provide a statistical analysis to key judges and state officials in the form of “The Poplicola Report on the Marion County Small Claims Courts.”

By Boulden’s count, Indianapolis-based Driver Solutions has filed more than 7,700 suits in Franklin and Warren townships, often winning judgments in excess of the $6,000 statutory cap.

The truck driving school’s financing contract stipulates that litigation will be filed in Marion County, even though the vast majority of defendants live outside the state. Boulden estimates about 3,200 default judgments against out-of-state defendants lacked proper notice and should be voided.

“This is a blight on the reputation of the courts, and it should be taken seriously,” he said. “It’s definitely the worst I’ve ever seen in terms of performance of the courts and an attorney.”

Based in Indianapolis, Driver Solutions LLC trains big-rig drivers at campuses here and around the country. In a period between 2008 and April 30, 2012, the company filed an average of six cases against trainees every business day in Franklin and Warren township courts, according figures provided by Boulden.

He said the company’s tuition of $5,995 is just below the small-claims cap, but its contracts also stipulate pre-judgment interest of 18 percent may be awarded on defaults.

“Anyone with whom I’ve shared the numbers is dumbfounded,” Boulden said. “Is this a school or a debt racket or a collection entity?”

In a statement, Driver Solutions CEO Michael Bankert said, “While we have not received a copy of the report in question, I am pleased with our commitment to providing career skills and employment opportunities within the trucking industry. In the past year alone, we have assisted over 4,000 individuals in obtaining gainful employment.”

Franklin Township Small Claims Judge John Kitley Jr. acknowledged a problem for part of 2011, but he said he doubts the number of faulty judgments is as high as Boulden asserts. Kitley said once he learned Driver Solutions attorney Brian Alsip was using delivery confirmation without signatures as a form of notice to out-of-state defendants, he put a stop to it. Kitley said he also forwarded a report about Alsip to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

“I’ve never felt compelled to report an attorney,” Kitley said. “I felt compelled in this case. I felt like I’d been misled.” The judge said he relied on affidavits from Alsip swearing that defendants had been properly served in those cases. He sent 15 such affidavits to the commission in which he said he believed notice wasn’t properly served, but Alsip swore it was.

“I hope the Supreme Court (Disciplinary Commission), when they look at this, will investigate it and follow up on some of these files,” Kitley said. If it is determined notice wasn’t properly served, “I would hope they would order Driver Solutions to set aside those judgments.”

The Indiana attorney general’s office also is reviewing the report, according to a statement, but a spokesperson declined to confirm whether the report had led to an investigation.

Kitley and Warren Township Judge Garland Graves said they had instituted reforms in their courts after the Baker-Barteau report was issued, but Kitley said major reform is still needed. He backs the Baker-Barteau task force report’s suggestion that the township courts be incorporated into Marion Superior courts.

Graves said after the report was issued that he had seen it and was reviewing Driver Solutions cases filed after he took the bench in 2011. But he took issue with some of Boulden’s conclusions. “He never contacted me as a judge to address any concerns he may have,” Graves said.

Kitley said the fallout from the report has been tough. “I spent my entire career trying to set the standard of doing things as best as could possibly be done,” he said. “I’ve had many sleepless nights.”

Baker said after reviewing Boulden’s report, “It’s pretty sad. … This may well cover times before some significant changes were made, but I am frustrated that notwithstanding our efforts in getting the (task force) report out, there has been no reaction from the General Assembly.”

Marion Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg oversees township small claims courts but said it’s hard to determine what might happen if default judgments are found to have followed improper service.

“If there are defects that should have been apparent by reviewing the file, the court must accept responsibility for that,” Rosenberg said when asked what could be done about judgments that may have resulted from improper service.

He later provided a more nuanced statement that read, in part: “Whether service was defective may be raised by a motion to set aside judgment per (Trial Rule) 60. … As for the court setting aside such judgments on its own motion, assuming that TR 60 permitted such action, the parties would have to be notified in advance and have the opportunity to present their respective positions.”

Kitley said he wasn’t troubled by the volume of claims from Driver Solutions. But he was concerned by what he described as a pattern of delay of many years before cases were filed. He said in most cases he recalled, the school would delay filing for two to three years or more, then ask for post-judgment interest of 18 percent on the unpaid balance.

“Do I have any proof whatsoever it was intentional? No,” he said. “That’s the only thing on those Driver Solutions cases I was really perplexed over.”

He said that while he doesn’t believe Driver Solutions is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that requires a debt collector to bring suit where a defendant lives or where a contract was signed, he said he wasn’t fond of the clause requiring litigation in Marion County.

“I questioned that clause from a sense of fairness,” he said. In many of those cases where notice was received, he allowed out-of-state defendants to appear by phone. He said the clause was enforceable unless a defendant could show fraud, coercion, undue influence, or that the defendant didn’t understand it.

“I probably would not have enforced that contract if anyone had met that burden,” Kitley said. “But they didn’t.”•

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. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT