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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT