Small Claims task force meetings begin Wednesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The newly created task force formed by the Indiana Supreme Court to look into the practices and procedures used in Marion County Small Claims courts will hold its first of three hearings Wednesday.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau – who both have experience with small claims cases – make up the task force. They will gather information by meeting with the judges and staff of the small claims courts and from public hearings. The goal is to get feedback from small claims litigants and attorneys.

The first meeting is at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Perry Township Small Claims Court, 4925 Shelby St., Indianapolis. Meetings will also be held Feb. 29 at 6 p.m. at the Pike Township Small Claims Court, 5665 Lafayette Rd., Suite B, Indianapolis; and at Marion Circuit Court at 6 p.m. on March 7 in the City-County Building.

The task force was created after allegations surfaced that large filers, such as property managers and collection companies, receive special treatment in the Marion County Small Claims courts, and that some parties “forum shop” by choosing to file in a particular small claims court with the thought that the defendant won’t be able to attend the hearing due to lack of reliable access to public transportation.

There have also been questions raised regarding the township trustees’ influence on court staff and operating budgets.

Once the task force has held the meetings and reviewed the practices and procedures, it will report to the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure with any recommendations about adjustments that could be made. The Indiana Supreme Court has the final say as to what, if any, procedural rules need changed.

In response to allegations, Marion County Small Claims judges have formed a plan to post brochures in the courtrooms detailing litigants’ rights and responsibilities.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.