IBJNews

County small-claims courts could receive overhaul

Associated Press
May 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County's small-claims courts could get a thorough makeover after a report released Tuesday detailed "significant and widespread problems" with how they're run.

The courts, which are in each of the county's nine townships, handle civil disputes involving less than $6,000.

One of the proposals calls for them to be absorbed into the Marion Superior Court system, which would require a change to Indiana law. Two other plans call for less extensive reforms.

The report will go to the Indiana Supreme Court's rules committee and legislators for review this summer.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge John Baker, who was on the task force, said the courts hadn't been operating under best practices, mostly because the system's setup was flawed. But he said he expects that to change.

"We're convinced that the present judges of the Marion County small-claims courts are totally committed to correcting that," he said. "The persons that are now in the system are going to make sure that the system does it right."

The task force, which the state's highest court appointed earlier this year after receiving complaints about the small-claims courts, held public hearings in February and March and did its own evaluation of the courts to determine the extent of the problems.

Bringing the small-claims courts into the Marion Superior Court system would eliminate several of those problems, according to the report.

The county would be responsible for funding the courts, and the judges would have full-time positions, so they couldn't practice law. The courts would have to follow more rules, and they would have to keep more detailed records of the proceedings. It also would eliminate forum shopping by attorneys seeking the most receptive courts for their cases and would bring Marion County in line with the state's other 91 counties, which don't have a separate small-claims court system.

However, Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg, an adviser to the county's nine small-claims court judges, said he questions whether legislators would approve that plan because they haven't supported previous proposals for township government reform.

"What I'm concerned about is getting as many of the recommendations in practice as soon as possible," Rosenberg said, "and I think the easiest way to do that is 'Plan B.' "

"Plan B" in the report would require legislative action but would keep the courts in the townships. It still would make small-claims court judges full-time employees and would allow the courts to control their budgets. They also would have to keep better records.

The third plan the task force proposed—measures guiding people through the small-claims process—will be implemented regardless of whether the other proposals succeed.

For people who have been through the small-claims system, even small changes are welcome.

Southside resident Jake Tyler said he was blind-sided when he went through the small-claims court system. An attorney for his apartment complex convinced him and his roommate they didn't have a strong argument in their dispute over carpet damage. Tyler said they didn't know their rights, so they conceded.

He said he would support any reform to make the process clearer and make the courts seem more professional.

"We didn't understand what was going on, and it just felt wrong," he said. "That was the most frustrating part."

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I still don't understand how the FBI had any right whatsoever to investigate this elderly collector. Before the Antiquities Act it was completely legal to buy, trade or collect Native American artifacts. I used to see arrow heads, axes, bowls, corn grinders at antique shops and flea markets for sale and I bought them myself. But that was in the late 60's and early 70's. And I now know that people used to steal items from sites and sell them. I understand that is illegal. But we used to find arrow heads and even a corn grinder in our back yard when I was a child. And I still have those items today in my small collection.

  2. I lived in California and they had many of the things noted in the proposed suggestions from the "Blue Ribbon Panel". California is near financial collapse now. Let's not turn the great state of Indiana into a third world dump like California.

  3. The temporary closure of BR Avenue will get a lot of attention. But, one thing reported by the IndyStar really stands out to me, and is extraordinarily depressing: “Police also have agreed to crack down on noise violations, traffic violations and public intoxication.” In other words, the police have generously agreed to do their jobs (temporarily, at least), instead of just standing around waiting for someone to call 911. When is someone in this department going to get off their fat arse (looking at you, Chief), get their minds out of 1975-era policing and into 2014, and have his department engage in pro-active work instead of sitting around waiting for someone to be shot? Why in the hell does it take 7 people getting shot in one night in one of the city’s biggest tourist destinations, to convince the police (reluctantly, it would appear) that they actually need to do their f’n jobs? When is the Chief going to realize that there’s a huge, direct, proven correlation between enforcing the law (yes, all laws, especially those affecting quality of life) and preventing larger crimes from occurring? Is it racial BS? Is that what this extraordinary reluctance is all about? Is the department and the city terrified that if they do their jobs, they might offend someone? Whom, exactly? Will the victims of violence, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and theft be offended? Will the citizens who have to tolerate their deteriorating quality of life be offended? Will the businesses who see their customers flee be offended? Or, is it simple ignorance (maybe the Chief hasn’t heard about NYC’s success in fighting crime - it’s only the biggest g*&#am city in the country, after all)? Either way, Chief, if you don’t want to do your job, then step down. Let someone who actually wants the job take it.

  4. I thought Indiana had all the funding it needed for everything. That's why the state lottery and casino gambling were allowed, as the new tax revenue would take care of everything the state wanted to do.The recommendations sound like they came from California. Better think about that. What is the financial condition of that state?

  5. I was a fan of WIBC in the morning, Steve was the only WIBC host that I listened too, he gave the news with so much flare that I enjoyed listening to him on my way to work. Katz is no Steve. Sadly, I will not be listening to WIBC anymore.

ADVERTISEMENT