ILNews

Will small claims court stay or will it go?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether a Marion County judge or a township trustee has the authority to determine where one of the state’s busiest courts will reside.

In Re: Mandate of Funds for Center Township of Marion County Small Claims Court Order for Mandate and Mandate of Funds, 49S00-1207-MF-420, involves issues of separation of powers and who controls the purse strings and day-to-day operation of the court.

city county The City-County Building in downtown Indianapolis has housed Center Township Small Claims Court since the court’s inception.(Photo submitted)

Center Township Small Claims Judge Michelle Smith Scott in 2011 issued a mandate order seeking funds for her court to hire additional staff, reconfigure the offices and remain where it’s always been – in the Indianapolis City-County Building. The order came after Township Trustee Eugene Akers and the township board approved a move of the court to the Julia M. Carson Government Center at 300 E. Fall Creek Parkway in Indianapolis.

Special Judge Charles L. Berger last year affirmed Scott’s mandate order and said the court would stay put and get most of the additional money that Scott requested. Akers and the township board appealed, and a decision is expected soon from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Scott said the 12,000 to 15,000 cases heard annually in her court are the most of any in Marion County, and

she believes hers probably is the busiest court in the state. “We’re able to handle it quite well,” Scott said of the court’s current location.

But Akers, who worked briefly as a deputy in the court prior to his election as trustee, disputes that. “The court is too small. It’s confining for the public and the staff.”

As trustee, Akers spent about $539,000 remodeling the former 300 East restaurant and bar in the Carson Government Center on Fall Creek Parkway to house the court, according to court documents. “The advantages are it’s larger, it can seat 100 people in the court, and there is room enough for the staff,” he said. “They’re not sitting on top of each other and it’s more convenient and it’s less costly to the taxpayers as far as the trustee’s office is concerned.”

Akers noted that the current configuration of the court requires users to walk through the clerks’ stations before entering the court. “There is no privacy for the staff,” he said.

Users also would benefit, Akers contends. “They (wouldn’t) have to worry about running out and putting some money in the meter if it’s a large court day.”

Berger toured both facilities before he ruled in Scott’s favor in June.

“Center Township proceeded with renovations to the Carson Center at a cost of over half a million dollars despite the issuance of the Mandate Order and the Indiana Supreme Court’s Order Appointing Special Judge prior to the execution of Center Township’s renovation contract. Center Township accepted the risk,” Berger wrote. “The fact that a court facility is now available at the Carson Center cannot dictate the outcome of this action. … The public’s access to justice would not be served by relocation to the Carson Center facility.”

Berger wrote that Akers “failed to adequately study and analyze the impact of the move” and didn’t consult with Scott. Berger also ordered that staff in the court should report to the court rather than the trustee after evidence was presented that clerks “view the Trustee, not the Court, as their employer.”

Akers said he talked to Scott before and after his election about the need to move the court, but he said those talks never included discussions of locations outside the City-County Building. “The point was moving; not where,” he said.

focus-court-15col.jpg Township trustees want the small claims venue moved to new quarters at the Julia M. Carson Government Center on Fall Creek Parkway.(Photo submitted)

Akers and the board argued that Scott has a personal lucrative interest in performing weddings – about 1,700 in 2010 and 2011, according to court records – that drove her desire to stay at the current location near the clerk’s office. Berger dismissed the concern as “speculation … unsupportable by credible evidence.”

Scott referred questions about the mandate dispute to the Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP attorneys representing the court. Partner Phil Isenbarger said the case presents separation-of-powers issues commonly raised in mandate actions.

“There’s always a power struggle between the courts and the council (or other funding body) as the case may be,” Isenbarger said. “What I would say is, not as counsel for the court but just as a practicing lawyer and a member of the local bar association, it’s really important that we get those things right. For the vast number of people in the community, their touch with the legal system is the small claims court.”

Karl Mulvaney of the BGD team that represented Scott said, “We certainly believe we presented arguments that judges are entitled to control what goes on in their courtrooms.”

Sections 1 - 3 of Indiana Code 33-34-6 give a Marion County township trustee the responsibility of providing a small claims courtroom, offices, supplies and staff. But Berger concluded in his ruling, “the Court cannot be denied the ability to control its daily operations and ensure that its location, facilities and policies ensure adequate access to justice.”

But township attorney Greg Hahn of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP said the trustee has clear responsibilities under the law.

“The statute says the Center Township trustee and, in fact, all the trustees have a duty to run those courts,” Hahn said. “That’s been the statute for a long time, and they’ve had that authority, or duty, however you want to look at it.

“The trustee is still responsible for the costs,” Hahn said. “The judge can say, ‘I want A, B, C, D, E and F, but the trustee is still the one who has to pay for it.”•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT