The House Courts and Criminal Code Committee heard SB 523, Sen. R. Michael Young’s bill to make changes to the Marion County Small Claims courts, sponsored by Rep. Frizzell. Sen. Young explained that decisions by the Indiana Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on venue within the small claims court had adversely affected the caseload balances between the individual township small claims courts, which diminished the fee revenues for a number of the courts to the point where they were no longer able to operate on the fee collections alone as they had in the past. Sen. Young stated the bill will overcome venue problems by creating three small claims court “districts,” each consisting of three of the nine townships with a small claims court in each township. This would allow case filings by district, which he said would help alleviate caseload imbalances and the resulting revenue problems. The small claims judges would become full time with salaries equal to 70% of a circuit court judge’s salary.
The bill would also raise the court’s jurisdictional level from the current $6,000 amount-in-controversy cap to $8,000, which Sen. Young said would result in more filings in the small claims court, helping increase their operating revenue, and reducing filings in the Marion Superior Court, helping lower that court’s caseload burdens. The bill would have the Decatur and Franklin township courts, which have had the most serious reductions in operating funds, each receive $1 of the docket fees for filings in the other seven township courts. Candidates in small claims court elections would run at-large within the three-township districts, with the three candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the district being elected. The elected candidates could agree between themselves as to which township court each would serve in, but if no agreement could be reached the Marion Circuit Court judge would assign the judges to their courts.
Sen. Young then presented Amendment 2, which he said he had drafted after meeting with Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush. He noted that “there’s a lot more they [the Supreme Court] want than is in this bill,” and said that he had asked the Chief Justice for the items the Court considers most needed. He said she had responded favorably to his proposal that there be a General Assembly summer study committee examination of small claims issues generally. He reported that she had said a desirable reform would be to make the small claims courts courts of record, which led Sen. Young to provide in his amendment that the small claims court would have three years to acquire the necessary equipment to become a court of record. He said the Chief Justice also said it was essential for there to be uniform practices and procedures in the nine township courts, which Sen. Young’s amendment would require to be in place by January 1, 2016. Sen. Young also said that the Chief Justice had said that a case management system should be implemented, which he said his amendment would require to be in place by July 1, 2016.
Testimony on the bill was then received from Judge John Baker of the Court of Appeals, who described previous small claims court reform studies made first by a task force he had chaired with Court of Appeals Senior Judge Betty Barteau, second by the Indianapolis Bar Association, and third by the National Center for State Courts. Judge Baker said that Chief Justice Rush appreciated Sen. Young’s willingness to incorporate some of the Supreme Court’s major concerns in the bill, but the Judge urged the Committee to commit the small claims court issues to a legislative summer study committee for a full-spectrum assessment rather than pass SB 523 now.
Further testimony was received for and against the bill from Marion Small Claims Court judges. Sen. Greg Taylor, Rep. Cherrish Pryor, and former Rep. William Crawford all urged the Committee to not pass the bill and instead send the small claims court issues to a summer study committee. In Committee discussion, five members thought it best to send the small claims court issues to a study committee, noting that after all the reform assessments there was still significant disagreement among those involved as to what should be done. Other members proposed that Sen. Young be given another week to see if the bill could be altered in a fashion which would better address objections heard in the hearing. Committee Chair Washburne decided to hold the bill for another week, to give Sen. Young an opportunity to present a revised bill with limited testimony only.
Read the bill at http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/523.