ILNews

Pence signs probate, problem-solving court legislation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mike Pence signed 25 bills into law Monday, including legislation restricting criminal background checks and changes to probate and trust administration.

House Enrolled Act 1056 makes various changes regarding a personal representative’s employment of an attorney, the powers and duties of a personal representative, guardianships and the rules of trust construction. The legislation also says that estate lawyers do not have a duty to collect, possess, manage, maintain, monitor or account for estate assets, unless otherwise required by a specific court order. Estate lawyers are also not liable for any loss suffered by the state, except for losses caused by the lawyer’s breach of duty owed to the personal representative. An estate attorney represents and only owes a duty to the personal representative under the new law.

The original bill was prepared by the Probate Code Study Commission. Estate attorneys hoped the legislation would clarify concerns raised after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on the scope and duties of a lawyer working on behalf of an estate’s personal representative.

House Enrolled Act 1016 allows problem-solving courts to offer rehabilitative services to participants. It also urges the Legislative Council to require the Commission on Courts during the 2013 legislative interim to evaluate the funding of veterans courts and to make recommendations to legislators. The new law also simplifies the problem-solving court fee transfer process.

HEA 1392 restricts criminal background checks and specifies that a clerk of a court is not a “criminal history provider” under the new law. The law allows a criminal history provider to provide certain information relating to an incident that did not result in a conviction, as well as provide information concerning expunged, restricted or reduced convictions to a person required by law to obtain the information. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee.

Other legislation Pence signed Monday includes:

HEA 1029 on who may obtain adoption history information; HEA 1061 allowing Marion Superior courts to appoint 12 full-time magistrates and Warrick Circuit and Superior courts to jointly appoint a magistrate; and HEA 1108 on sentencing for youthful offenders.

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT