ILNews

Marion County small claims under review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A two-judge task force looking into the operation of Marion County’s small claims courts has listened to complaints from the public about inconvenience and confusion with the current system and will consider if any changes are needed.

The feedback makes clear that some people who’ve been before the courts as litigants believe the system is broken.

Public testimony was taken at hearings held Feb. 22 in Perry Township, Feb. 29 in Pike Township, and March 7 in the Marion Circuit Court, where people talked about their experiences in the nine township courts. They said it was difficult to determine who were court employees and who were attorneys for the debt-collection agencies or creditors. Litigants explained they felt harassed or forced to talk with plaintiff attorneys rather than a judge, and that any effort to argue their side would lead to a loss in court or a greater monetary judgment against them. Many people didn’t understand why their case was sent to a small claims court away from the township they resided, saying it would make more sense to have a case filed closer to where they live.

The small claims courts are being put under the microscope following critical news articles in the national media last year suggesting Marion County litigants may not receive the same access to justice in each small claims court or as parties have in other Indiana jurisdictions. The Indiana Supreme Court announced in February that Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau from the Court of Appeals, both with experience at the small claims level, would host the hearings to get feedback about the system and then examine the court structure and operations.

At the hearing held in Judge Doug Stephens’ Pike Township courtroom, about 60 people attended and a dozen spoke about their experiences in small claims courts throughout the county.

john baker Senior Judge Betty Barteau and Judge John Baker, both from the Indiana Court of Appeals, led a task force studying the Marion County Small Claims system. They conducted three hearings to get public feedback. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Roger and Reita Vandrey of Pike Township spoke about having to travel three times to the small claims court in Decatur Township to resolve confusion over the payment of a medical bill from 2002. Although they thought they would see a judge, they were taken after a two-hour wait into a small room with only the bill collector’s attorney and told the judge wasn’t even in the building. They said they were told to “shut up” when trying to ask questions and were not allowed to speak, and after the debt was eventually resolved, they had to repeatedly request a document from the court staff to prove the matter was completed.

“Nobody wanted to hear our side of it,” Reita Vandrey said.

Mariann Hunnicutt from Washington Township talked about having to take a half day off work to travel to a different township for a court hearing on a medical bill debt. She wasn’t advised of having the option to change venue until she specifically asked about the possibility, and when she was in court, Hunnicut said she wasn’t able to see a judge.

Brandon R. Major, a litigant in a $3,900 lease dispute, prevailed in Center Township Small Claims Court with a $240 judgment in his favor. But a Superior Court review led to a reversal and his having to pay almost $6,000 – with only about $1,100 going to the plaintiff and the rest going to the attorney, he said. He also talked about his observations of intimidating attorney behavior and court staff not helping people who had basic questions about the court procedures.

Some people who have been small claims defendants spoke about court decisions that were not properly recorded, causing them to handle the same case again due to claims that it wasn’t resolved, when it had been.

Several attorneys offered their feedback, some defending the system and others criticizing the courts.

Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden, who represents defendants in small claims court, said he is concerned about the practice of “forum-shopping” and believes the courts need more consistency. He also said attorneys should be required to file all actions in the township where the defendant lives, not just in landlord-tenant disputes as the rules currently require.

Collection attorneys said they have many cases to file, so they often choose a location based on where they can be the most efficient. That involves locations close to their offices and where they are able to easily get court assistance. Several said litigants have notice of their rights, including venue change availability, when they receive suits and notices in the mail.

Phillip La Mere, managing partner at Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician in Indianapolis, described the term forum shopping as a “gross misnomer” and said it doesn’t happen the way the media or defense attorneys say it does. Most often, he said litigants’ lack of understanding about the process is because they’re not reading the notices and documents that are in front of them.

Attorney Jeff Galliher, who has handled about 1,800 eviction cases in the past two years, said he hasn’t observed any unprofessional conduct from his colleagues or the judges, and that he thinks everyone is very cognizant of litigants’ rights – especially those representing themselves. The legal community is doing its best to get the cases moved through the system efficiently, he said.

Collections attorney Joseph Guy, past president of the Indiana Creditors Bar Association, argues that lawyers having access to court space isn’t a conflict and they aren’t presenting themselves as court employees.

“We do need a place to do our work,” he said.

But Baker said a concern that repeatedly has been brought to the task force’s attention is how it appears the plaintiff’s attorneys are doing tasks and getting preferential treatment that should be reserved for court staff. That can be confusing to someone who doesn’t understand the system, Baker said. He also pointed out that some evidence has been presented to the task force that entire courtrooms have been turned over to collection attorneys to use in meeting with debtors.

“The public might not know the difference between the plaintiff’s attorney and a member of the court staff when they have just arrived at court,” he said.

Baker and Barteau will now put the feedback into context to determine if any changes are needed. They will issue a report to the Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure which will then study the topic and recommend any needed changes to the state’s justices for consideration. Any procedural rule changes would come from the Supreme Court. No timeline exists for that process to happen and there’s no guarantee that any changes will be made, Baker told residents at the hearings.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • kangaroo court
    I was a guarantor on a legal bill, despite a usuary interest rate of 12%per month, aguarantor provision that says im obligated only if they are still on the case,no date or copy provided, lawyer quit due to knee surgery. Contract eas onesided voidable, judge interrupted presentation of case, no final statment of charges provided,etc

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT