Hello? This is judiciary? I think so. We do? We do? We do. Perfect. All right. We only have one bill on the agenda today. That would be I didn't even see Representative Jeter there looking so sharp in his spring blazer. House Bill eleven forty four. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Pleasure to be in front of you here in your nice new room. I think it's the first time I've been in here. I'm here to bring to you House Bill eleven forty four, which is our our, biannual courts bill. For those of you who may be new, every two years, we, Senator Brown and I, chair interim committee on the on,
judiciary and the courts, and we hear a request for new courts. And so this year, the committee unanimously approved nine out of the 10 new courts that were requested. I know those have sort of been scattered in bills, in different bills that I think are going to kind of all make their way into this one today before they head over to the fiscal folks. And so I know there's folks here to testify some of that. I know there's some amendments that I'll leave to the chair. But one thing I just did want to note for the committee is, there was a great recommendation from the interim committee about sort of the allocation of judges that I thought would be interesting to share with you. So if you look at the total number of judges in the state, we're at about a one point o.
So we're almost exactly where we need to be for our population as far as number of judges across the state. And so I think one of the things that we need to start doing, you know, instead of just continually adding, is looking at the reallocation of judges based on maybe where the needs and the growth are in the state. The, interim committee approved that recommendation unanimously. And so I think Senator Brown and I are gonna work to start, putting together a little bit more of a robust sort of system for reviewing where these judges should go across the state, as well as the metrics that are used to determine, you know, how busy they are. So, that that is work that's coming. I'm excited about it. I think it'll be a good,
I think it'll be a good, we'll be good stewards of the taxpayer money by doing that. We'll continue to work on that. But for today, House Bill eleven forty four does include the judges that were approved unanimously by the committee. And I'm happy to answer any questions. But otherwise, we're going to ask for your support. Thank you, Representative Jeter. Do we have any questions? We have three people no, yes, three people signed up. And then we also have six amendments. So shall we start with the amendments? Alrighty. Let's go down the line. Senator Freeman. Madam chair, thank you. I call amendment number six, which in essence puts, Senate bill three twenty seven or a version of that in,
specifically dealing with the Marion County Small Claims Courts would raise the fee $26 and share the entire filing fee among the nine township courts. Would ask for your support. Second. All right. Can we take that by consent? All right. That's one down. Next, Senator Gluck. I would respectfully submit Amendment three, which is the Subban County Courts. This amendment takes the magistrate, the Subban County, and removes the magistrate position and then creates a superior court. So in essence,
the difference is the difference in pay between a magistrate and a second superior court in Steuben County. It's a minimal cost to the State of Indiana, but will assist Steuben County greatly in getting coequal jurisdictions up there. And this is because of a conflict of interest right now, right? Right now, we have a situation created with the death of long time serving, circuit court judge, Alan Wheat. He was replaced by the former prosecutor, Jeremy Musser.
Musser's brother is currently the, prosecuting attorney, and so he can't appear in front of the circuit court judge. So all the criminal cases are now going to the the superior court, and, this would just allow and the magistrate. We're just trying to get the second magistrate up to a superior court, And therefore, we would have two superior courts that could handle the criminal case because there is a criminal caseload in that county because of the interstates, because of the toll road and because of our proximity to Michigan and Ohio. And we just numbers we justify.
Can we take that by consent? Yes, I have it. All right. Next. Madam Chair, I got Amendment Number seven. This would allow the judge of the Lawrence County Juvenile Court to appoint a full time magistrate. That's a position that's currently being served by a referee. And this went through the summer study committee favorably. Okay. All right. Next. What's that? Oh, I'm sorry. Can we take that by consent? Thank you very much. So we pass Amendment six thirty seven. Next. Senator Alexander. Madam chair, I will request amendment number four, which would allow the Delaware County,
judges, a magistrate. Can we take that by consent? Consent. All right. Next. Madam Chair, respectfully Amendment Number nine, which would, allow the small claims courts in Indianapolis because we have, nine small claims courts that hear eviction cases. And we have a situation where, the superior courts have been hearing cases on evictions and, my amendment changes takes the eviction jurisdiction away from the superior court and allows, evictions to be filed in the township where the property is located or any contiguous
township in the county. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Senator Freeman. I'm gonna move the amendment and I support the amendment. I've talked to my friend, Senator Taylor. And I would with the permission of the chair, I believe there is some tweaks to do to this and I would ask for permission on second reading to do an amendment. Senator Taylor was kind enough to give me three pages of research to read. I read it. The issue here is the Seventh Circuit in Chicago decided a case and restricted filings currently the way the current law is today is you
have to file on the township in which the property is located. We're changing that, and I can be as honest as you want me to be about why we are changing that. We have a couple of townships that when somebody's seeking an eviction, there are continuances that go for months and a very long time. And a lot of litigants are very frustrated and have now not filed in small claims court and are filing in superior court, which is the problem senator Taylor is trying to solve.
And I support his trying to solve that. We are not gonna solve that by requiring people to file in small claims courts when orders are extended out for months. So I am in no position to ask my judiciary friends for anything, but a little Jerry Maguire help me help you would go a long way in these situations. But to comply with what the Seventh Circuit current order is to allow for a filing in a contiguous township, I think there needs to be nine circuit court small claims courts,
if that makes sense, to make us a judicial circuit so that the Seventh Circuit doesn't view this as venue shopping, which is the way they viewed it recently in a recent decision. I think there needs to be a few amendments. I am not opposed to the amendment. I think there needs to be some small tweaks to this just so everybody's clear on what my work would do and if the chair would permit for on second reading. I move the amendment. I'm good with that. There's gonna be a lot of tweaks. Can we take that by consent? Oh, I'm sorry. I sent it across. I'm sorry. Just I'm trying to understand the reason for this.
I was asking, Senator Taylor for the amendment. Senator Carrasco, in 2020, the Marion County Superior Court created a small claims court jurisdiction. They have the authority to do that. The circuit court created the court. And what would happen is individuals, for example, who are in Lawrence Township and were going to be evicted, the plaintiff would file for eviction in Marion County Superior Court. In Marion County Superior Court, as you know, there are trial rules and procedures,
For example, the twenty three day response once you file a case. Whereas in small claims court, that does not exist. It was a hardship on the tenants in the community to have to go down to the superior court and have to abide by those, superior court rules and rules of procedure. In the year of 2022, just to give you some, numbers, these cases that were filed started out at five ten in 2022.
By 2023, there was an additional twelve ten. And January through August of twenty twenty four, there were nine forty six cases, small claims cases filed in superior court. We are not taking small claims court jurisdiction away. I just feel like if you're gonna be, removing someone, a tenant, from their home, that it should be at the small claims court area I mean, at the small claims court jurisdiction or somewhere close to where the tenant lives. That's the purpose.
I don't know if that answers your question, senator. Yes. It does. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Alright. So we have an amendment, a motion, and a second. Can we take that by We already have seconded. I would just like to make a comment. Madam Chair, thank you. I, you know, from our meeting in the first half, I believe that litigants are entitled to the protection of the rules of evidence. And it's my understanding this amendment would take it away. So for that reason, I'd like to vote no on the amendment. We'll call the roll, please. Oh, did you have a comment, Senator Taylor? Did you?
I'm sorry. I didn't. Did I misunderstand your amendment? If I did. But understanding that your amendment requires eviction to be filed in small claims courts under the small claims rules. The eviction yes. Because it takes jurisdiction, just evictions, Senator. It has nothing to do with collections or any other small claims. I believe, and I don't I don't live in any other county, that other counties that have small claims court superior courts relax the rules of procedure as well in those small claims cases because they're usually,
you know, small level litigants. So, this would be consistent with what goes on with the rest of the state. So I hear what you're saying, but I think it happens in other jurisdictions where they don't have nine small claims courts and only have one. I appreciate that. And I'll keep an open mind as, Senator Freeman does his work on second reading. Thank you. Alright. Please call the roll. This is on amendment number nine. Senator Alexander? Yes. Senator Buck? Aye. Senator Freeman? Aye. Senator Carrasco? Aye. Senator. Aye. Senator Glick.
Aye. Senator Cook. No. Senator Clark. Aye. Senator Randolph. Senator Pol. Aye. Senator Taylor. Yes. Chair Brown. Yes. Nine to one. All right. And then finally, we have amendment number five. I was asked to bring this amendment to create the family recovery court fund. This is to help families who have been implicated in a possible abuse or neglect case. And there may be some substance use disorders or others. And this is just a continuation of the problems of courts. I'm willing to consider this.
I have told anybody who's come to me there's no money. So, but we can certainly consider this as well. So I'd appreciate any comment on this amendment number five. I'll move on to this. Thank you. I would say the same. It was going to be 11 of seven in the House, which I was going to sponsor. So I think this is a good thing about charities and what we can give to this. Madam Chair, my only comment about this is at a time when the we're getting more and more pressure to do away with courts as we're creating courts, This one seems to be a good court,
and it fits with the Chief Justice's concept of specialty courts. These children, at one time, I was prosecutor and was the attorney for the Department of Family and Children. And these children are the innocent victims of their parents' criminal behavior. And those problems cannot be resolved in the current court structure that we have. And so this would allow some specialty provisions and programs set up just specifically to address the needs of those children. So I'm in favor of this amendment.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Glick. Any other discussion? Motion. Second. Can we take this by consent? Consent. All right. Thank you. So now we have an amended bill and we have three people signed up. Okay. Perfect. All right. So we have two people we're going to testify. Daniel Kenny, Daniel Kelly and then Christine Osterday. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Daniel Kelly and I'm from Vigo County. I'm currently Vigo Judge Vigo Superior Court Six. But for fourteen years prior to this year, I was a magistrate in Vigo County and got to watch our caseload grow and
grow and grow, primarily in the area of the child need of services cases of which Senator Glick just spoke. We have about 4.5 times the number of Chins cases in Eagle County that we had in 2010 when I started. Chief Justice Rush informed me when I gave the numbers at an earlier committee hearing here that we had about 20% of the Chin's filings for 2020 in the same court does all of the juvenile delinquency and paternity cases as well. So the gentleman that took over that court is here with me today,
Magistrate Matt Efner. And he says he's been working seventy to eighty hours each week since he started. So we could really use the help. And I certainly appreciate the sponsorship of Chair Brown and Senator Cook. And wanna thank, Representative Jeter too for carrying this bill and we appreciate your support. And anyone, thank you very much. Mr. Kelly, did anyone ever indicate why you had such a high proportion of Chin's cases? We can only really speculate, Chair Brown. I think it's our meth problem. Meth? Myth, yes. Because I would say ninety percent of the cases are brought to the attention of
either law enforcement and or the DCS by, because of like domestic violence or something going on in the home and then the parents are under the influence and test positive for meth or their kids aren't getting to school. And they go check out the home and the parents are on meth. I think that's our scourge. So these are all real Chin's cases. This is not overbearing DCS coming in. The disposition has always been Right. Because I used to handle a lot of Chin's cases and terminations. I would be assigned special judge on some of the surrounding counties and frankly handled
cases we wouldn't have ever messed with in Vito. So I don't think they're being overly picky. I mean, I think it's just a problem. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate you're coming here today to testify. Ms. Osterday? Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Christine Osterday. I'm the judge of Elkhart's peer report number one. We are here to ask for your support for this bill. And I've provided information to you previously in the interim study committee, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about our needs and anything else that I can clarify for you.
Anyone have any questions? Thank you very much for coming down here. All right. Thank you. Judge Osterday. Appreciate it. Alright. So there's no one else? Anyone here? Nope. Nope. A lot of dead time now, people. Okay. So with that Move the bill. Oh, and this is a recommit. To read to appropriations. Madam Chair, I'd just like to note for the record, judges from Orange County are here in support of the amendment and they waive testimony in the interest of time and appreciation. They waived to us and they've waived testimony and thank you for coming down and supporting. I appreciate it. Alright. So we have a motion to move the bill as amended knowing it's a recommit
to appropriations where the magic will happen. Please call the rule. Senator Alexander? Yes. Senator Buck? Aye. Senator Freeman? Aye. Senator Carrasco? Aye. Senator Glick? Aye. Senator Cook? Aye. Senator Clark? Aye. Senator Randolph? Senator Poole? Aye. Senator Taylor? Yes. Chair Brown? I just wanna point out that because I took all these amendments today, this you've probably been reading there are going to be some changes to our courts and the formula, etcetera. So I thought since we are going to be making these changes,
I was generous with accepting everyone's amendments. And I believe I've spoken with the authors. There's no guarantee that these will go through. Obviously, some of the courts that are here today have already gone through summer study. But since we're gonna have a broader conversation, I thought it would be fair to, invite everyone into the the party, so to speak. So anyway, with that, I'll vote. Yes. 10 to zero for the recommit. Thank you very much.