Durham asks to move back into his mansion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indicted financier Tim Durham has asked a federal judge to allow him to move from his sister’s home in Geist back to his own, 20,000-square-foot mansion in Fortville.

Durham has been living on home detention at his sister’s house since his April arrest on 12 felony counts.  

His motion to move to his mansion was made under seal. But federal prosecutors, in an objection filed on Monday, said Durham made the motion because his sister is concerned for her safety due to threats made against Durham.

Prosecutors argued that allowing Durham to live in a house built partly with Fair Finance Co. investor money is “tantamount to letting him enjoy the fruits of his crime, as alleged by the grand jury.” The judge has not ruled on his request.

A 23-page grand jury indictment alleges that Durham and business partner James F. Cochran worked with former Fair Finance Chief Financial Officer Rick D. Snow to devise and execute a scheme to defraud investors in the Akron, Ohio-based company.

Authorities say that after Durham bought Fair in 2002, he doled out related-party loans with abandon, leaving the company unable to repay Ohio residents who purchased unsecured investment certificates boasting interest rates as high as 9.5 percent. More than 5,200 investors are owed more than $230 million.

Durham, Cochran and Snow have denied wrongdoing.
Further objecting to Durham’s latest motion, federal prosecutors argue that he should not be living in a house that is in foreclosure due to his own inability to maintain mortgage payments.

They also believe two of the three individuals living in Durham’s mansion are potential witnesses in their case against him. Durham said in his motion that one of the individuals has agreed to move out if his request is granted.

“If Durham does not want to live with his sister any longer, he should be given an opportunity to find a residence that is not implicated in the fraud and where potential witnesses do not also reside,” prosecutors wrote.

Last month, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson denied Durham’s request to relax restrictions of his home detention. He had asked the court to modify the conditions of his release to visit his attorney’s office more frequently and to travel to California up to 12 days a month.

Durham is acting CEO of National Lampoon Inc. in Los Angeles.



  • Why not stay in Jail
    What is Tim Durham to good to cool his heels in county lock-up???? If his life is being threatened he has no one but his greed self to blame! How many folks are just trying to get by on meager savings an SSI. I think every thing should be taken and sold. Keep a pair of jeans, shirt, boots and a coat. He should have to payback every red cent. Sick of crooks like this always getting the breaks.
  • Invitation
    Mr. Durham can stay at out farm and work off what he took from us. Alternatively be can hide away from his detractors in our local jail.
  • Sister
    Doesn't his sister have children? She's concerned about her safety and not her chilldren's?
    Can he prove the death threats or is he using that as an excuse to move back to the mansion?
  • Sister's house
    The house he is living in with his siter is also in Foreclosure
  • Why??
    Who is, and why are people living in this house? Why isnt this in the article...duh. If i forclosed on my house I doubt the bank would let other people live there while in foreclosure. It's crazy how the rich live by a completely different set of rules than a us middle classers. Exactly why we need a full turnover in the house and senate.
    • He has options
      For everyones safety, maybe he should go back to the halfway house on Capitol Avenue, Prison in Pendelton, or maybe call Mitch about using the empty Governor's mansion.

    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 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    2. If you only knew....

    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.