« March 09, 2009 | Main | March 11, 2009 »
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ind. Courts - Still more on: Training on new loan modification programs
Updating this ILB entry from March 7th on the first of 30 training seminars on mortgage loan modification programs, NPR's All Things Considered today had a 17 minute report by Greg Allen titled "Missing Mortgage Notes Delay Some Foreclosures." Here is a quote from the accompanying text:
The demand that banks seeking foreclosure "produce the note" is a cry that's gotten attention from housing activists and real estate attorneys across the country.For banks that own and service the loans they originate, finding the original paperwork is rarely a problem. But with loans that have been securitized — parceled with other mortgages and sold to investors — the original mortgage note can be elusive.
Lawyer April Charney, who works with Jacksonville Legal Services in Florida, has become well-known as an expert on defending homeowners against foreclosures. She says asking the bank to produce the paperwork is just the beginning.
She says lawyers who take the time to study the mortgage notes and the securitization agreements will almost always find deficiencies, and sometimes, fraud. "These loans are so tricked up by the Ponzi scheme that became the world of securitization and derivatives, that there is no owner to these loans," she says. "They just totally failed to comply with their contracts."
Charney has a full caseload and she's been working to train a small army of lawyers through seminars across the country.
The new world of securitized mortgages, she says, is layered and nuanced. Some courts, overwhelmed by a growing backlog of foreclosures, can even be hostile to attorneys who want to slow down the process.
But in some cases, it's the judges who are beginning to ask probing questions of plaintiffs seeking foreclosures. In California, federal bankruptcy judge Samuel Bufford has written about some of the new issues courts must consider in foreclosure cases. "One of the problems I see … is I don't seem to have the right parties before the court," he says. "I've taken testimony … and found out that the owner of the mortgage is somebody else who has not shown up in court at all."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Courts
Ind. Courts - "Gov. Daniels fills Courthouse commission"
From a Department of Natural Resources press release today:
Gov. Mitch Daniels and Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard have announced the appointment of the Courthouse Preservation Advisory Commission that will advise county officials on caring for Indiana’s historic courthouses and provide recommendations on how they may be preserved.The law creating the Courthouse Preservation Advisory Commission is found at IC 14-21-4. It was put in place by a 2008 act, Senate Bill 176, and went into effect July 1, 2008. A noncode SECTION 7 of the Act provides:Gov. Daniels named Shepard to serve as commission chair and the following to fill positions as specified in the 2008 law: Ron Ross, Fort Wayne, as licensed architect; Fritz Herget, Indianapolis, professional engineer; Diana Hawes, Bloomington, architectural historian; Kathy Beumer, Randolph County, county commissioner member; Brad Bumgardner, executive director of the Parke County Community Foundation, local community foundation representative; and David Decker, Terre Haute, Association of Indiana Counties member.
Ex officio members are Shepard, Dr. James A. Glass, director of the DNR Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology; Marsh Davis, president of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana; and David Terrell, executive director of the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. Shepard also will appoint a judge of a county, superior, or circuit court to the commission.
“The commission will play an important role in increasing access to reliable information about how to preserve these important symbols of our communities,” Gov. Daniels said.
Shepard said, “We anticipate providing such advice and building public awareness of the many possibilities for continued use and enjoyment of these distinguished landmarks.”
Upon request, the commission will provide county officials with assessments of historic courthouse conditions, technical advice on rehabilitation projects to encourage appropriate preservation practices, recommendations on architectural and engineering plans for rehabilitation, and information concerning funding sources for such projects.
The commission also will submit a report to the Indiana General Assembly by August 2011 that assesses the importance of preserving historic courthouses to the history, identity and economic revitalization of county seats and counties; investigates the need for rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of historic courthouses; studies the condition of such courthouses; and studies the needs of county officials in planning for the successful restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of historic courthouses.
The commission’s first meeting is April 8, at 1:30 p.m., in conference room 5, Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis.
(c) Notwithstanding IC 14-21-4-5, as added by this act, initial appointments under subsection (b) must be made not later than August 1, 2008.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Courts
Courts - "Judging . . . A Good Job, But Could it Be Safer?"
The WSJ Law Blog has posted this entry.. A quote:
A 2007 study by the Administrative Office of the Courts found 35 percent of California’s judges were threatened, with one-third of those threats considered “imminent.”Courtroom attacks seem “to be happening more and more, and I don’t know why,” said Los Angeles County Judge Ricardo Ocampo, who was a Compton prosecutor in 2001 when a defendant tried to shank him during a sentencing. Judges aren’t always the target: Two examples in recent years: In 2001, a child-molestation defendant shot a witness and her husband before killing himself at a Siskiyou County, Calif., courthouse. In 1993, a Northern California woman shot her son’s alleged molester in a Tuolomne County, Calif., courtroom.
In spite of the risk, judges have little choice but to show up for work, said Judge Bernard Garber, a colleague of Fox’s at the San Joaquin County Superior Court.
“I’ve been a judge for 25 years,” he said, “and let me say this: the day I’m afraid to take the bench is the last day I’ll take the bench. You can’t be afraid. You just have to have faith in the system.”
Some judges have even taken protection in to their own hands. According to the story, Tehama County, Calif., judge Richard Scheuler packs a .380 pistol under his robe.
“Why wouldn’t you?” said Scheuler during a telephone interview Monday. Scheuler’s predecessor in the courts was shot at with a 12-gauge shotgun in 1985 by a litigant. The shot missed.
“If that guy had tried to come over the bench to me,” Scheuler said, referring to the Stockton incident, “he would’ve been looking down the barrel of a .380.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Courts in general
Not Law - Evansville C&P reporter Bryan Corbin leaves paper
There are certain Indiana reporters whose stories I always look for. Bryan Corbin of the Evansville Courier & Press certainly has been one of them. A top notch reporter, I particularly followed his weekly summing up of the General Assembly activities. Today I searched the paper for his name and found only this story:
Nineteen years is a long time to do anything, and that's how long I've been a working journalist at Indiana newspapers.And thank you, reporter Bryan Corbin.It ended Friday. I am leaving the Courier & Press to take a media-relations job in Indianapolis.
You've heard how the economic meltdown has hit the newspaper industry especially hard. Newspaper companies' revenues have fallen off a cliff, forcing some papers to make massive layoffs and others to close.
Seeking a safe employment harbor in the economic storm is part of my reason for leaving my longtime profession. But I've also wanted to find a new challenge through which I could serve the public in a different way. * * *
Thanks to the legislators, attorneys, court staff, judges and prosecutors who went the extra mile to explain how our legal system works. Judge Wayne Trockman, Judge David Kiely, Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Stan Levco and Deputy Prosecutor Donita Farr were always generous with their time. Special thanks to the late attorney Cole Banks, who was interviewed by this newspaper many times as a legal and political analyst. Thanks to you who read my articles and columns, in print and online, and took the time to e-mail, call or even drop a handwritten letter in the mail. The compliments and complaints all were appreciated.
Having now changed careers, I'm rooting for my former colleagues who remain in the newspaper business, but the road ahead for them is very tough. Now more than ever, society needs newspaper journalists, since it is they — not TV, not bloggers — who primarily hold politicians, bureaucrats and powerful institutions accountable to the public.
If you want your daily newspaper to continue to be around to perform that vital watchdog role, then you should not only subscribe, you should also patronize those businesses that advertise in the newspaper and on its Web site. Newspaper viability is crucial not just to the future of an individual company but to the preservation of a free society.
So in looking back, I wish each of you in Southwestern Indiana the best during the rocky months ahead. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of sharing your stories.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to General News
Ind. Gov't. - Local government revamp on the ropes [Update - or maybe not]
From the Evansville Courier & Press, an AP developing story:
An Indiana House committee has dealt a serious blow to local government reorganization efforts in Indiana.[More] Here is more, from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.The Democrat-controlled Government and Regulatory Reform committee voted Tuesday to fold several local government provisions proposed by Gov. Mitch Daniels into a single bill.
The panel then voted to reject the bill, with one Republican joining six Democrats in voting against the bill. Several Republicans then walked out in protest.
[Update at 1:45 PM] Now this just posted story - "Indiana House panel keeps government reform alive" - by Eric Bradner of the C&P.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Government
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today
In U.S. v. Brazelton (ND Ind., Chief Judge Mlller), a 10-age opinion, Judge Coffey writes:
Police arrested Badayah Brazelton as he exited his home after a witness identified him as the assailant in a shooting. Following his arrest, police obtained a search warrant for Brazelton’s home and discovered guns, crack, marijuana, and other drug paraphernalia. Brazelton was never charged with the shooting, but based on the items found in his house during the search, Brazelton was tried and convicted before a jury on two counts of gun crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (g), and three counts of drug crimes, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The court sentenced him to 425 months of imprisonment.Appellant Brazelton argues that his conviction should be set aside, arguing that one of the jurors seated was related to the victim of the shooting that led to Brazelton’s arrest and the search of his home. He makes this argument even though the victim did not testify and his name was not mentioned again after it was mentioned at voir dire. More importantly, though, Brazelton waived the issue raised for argument at trial even though he was aware of the juror's relationship at voir dire, and told the judge during the juror selection process that he did not want the juror to be struck for cause.
Brazelton also claims, and the govern- ment concedes, that he should be resentenced in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007) because the district court followed the then-governing case law rejecting Brazelton’s argument that the court had discretion to impose a below-guidelines sentence based on a disagreement with the crack-powder ratio. We agree and remand for resentencing and affirm Brazelton’s conviction. * * *
In this circuit, there is no ambiguity on the question whether the right to an impartial jury can be waived. We have held that “[t]he Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, like any constitutional right, may be waived.” * * * Brazelton’s on-the-record decision to pass up not one, but two opportunities to ask that Juror Number Four be struck for cause was a waiver. If a defendant is allowed to twice forego challenges for-cause to a biased juror and then allowed to have the conviction reversed on appeal because of that juror’s service, that would be equivalent to allowing the defendant to “plant an error and grow a risk-free trial.” United States v. Boyd, 86 F.3d 719, 722-23 (7th Cir. 1996).
Brazelton’s second argument, that his sentence should be remanded in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), fares much better. At the time of sentencing, our case law precluded district courts from imposing a sentence based on the court’s disagreement with the crack- powder ratio, see United States v. Jointer, 457 F.3d 682, 686-88 (7th Cir. 2006), thus the trial judge properly rejected Brazelton’s argument to do just that. After Kimbrough, even in a “mine-run case,” district courts are allowed to impose lesser sentences after a determination that the 100- to-one ratio produces a sentence greater than necessary for a particular defendant. Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 575. And this new discretion applies in cases like Brazelton’s that involve the equivalency tables because the tables embodied the 100-to-one ratio. See United States v. Williams, 276 Fed. App’x 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2008). Brazelton raised this issue in the district court and the district court gave no ex-planation as to whether it would have imposed the same sentence if it had the discretion to consider the disparity. Brazelton is entitled to a remand for resen-tencing. See United States v. Padilla, 520 F.3d 766, 774 (7th Cir. 2008).
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 1 NFP)
For publication opinions today (0):
NFP civil opinions today (0):
NFP criminal opinions today (1):
Jeffrey A. Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions
Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending March 6, 2009
Here is the transfer list for the week ending March 6, 2009. It is 3 pages long.
Transfer was granted last week in the case of Che B. Carter v. State - see ILB entry here from March 5th. And, as noted earlier today, transfer was granted in Gregory T. Hill v. State, the COA opinion was vacated and the case remanded to trial court.
As noted in this March 8th ILB entry, the Supreme Court vacated its transfer grant in Gunkel v. Renovations after oral argument.
Finally, the Supreme Court denied transfer in a much written-about case, Brothers of Holy Cross Inc. v. St. Joseph Co. Property Tax Assessment Bd. Of Appeals. See list of ILB entries here. The case concerned whether/when real estate owned by a religious institution is subject to the state property tax.
Transfer lists have new feature. Thanks to Clerk of the Courts Kevin Smith, starting today the weekly transfer list has a new feature -- the "Denied/Granted" column includes the votes of the justices. This is a great addition.
Search all the Transfer Lists: A new ILB feature, "Search the ILB Transfer Lists," allows you to do just that. Check it out. Read the instructions.
Five years of Transfer Lists: For other weekly transfer lists (going back to Feb. 2, 2004), check "Indiana Transfer Lists" under "Categories" below, or in the right column.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Transfer Lists
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues three opinons today
In In the Matter of R.J.G., a 5-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Boehm writes:
We hold that a juvenile court may order a commitment to the Department of Correction and, in the same order, provide for probation following release from the Department of Correction. * * *In Christine R. Scheible v. Ronald Smith, Fred Jackson, a 9-page, 3-2 opinion, Justice Boehm writes:We affirm the provision of the dispositional decree ordering probation following R.J.G.‘s
release from the Department of Correction.
In Valinet v. Eskew, 574 N.E.2d 283, 285 (Ind. 1991), we adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts section 363 permitting possessors of land to be held liable for harm caused by the condition of trees on land near a highway. A seller of land may be liable for harm caused by the con- dition of trees on the land near a highway if the seller is in possession or control of the condition of the trees when the harm occurs. In this case, the seller did not retain possession or control of routine maintenance, including trimming of trees, and the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for the seller. * * *In Jim Atterholt, et al v. Geneva Herbst, et al, an 8-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Boehm writes:The issue here is one of first impression: under what circumstances a vendor of land may be liable to a third party for harm resulting from the condition of trees on the land near a high- way. * * *
Here Scheible acknowledges that a vendor will typically have no post-sale liability, but argues that Jackson can be held liable because he continued “acting like a landowner” after the sale. * * *
In sum, the contract called for possession to transfer to Smith at closing. None of the evidence designated is inconsistent with that provision. As a matter of law, liability under sec- tion 343, the only provision addressed by the parties, lies with Smith as the possessor of the land. * * *
Scheible also argues that summary judgment is improper because Jackson’s violation of a city ordinance constitutes negligence per se. We do not believe the cited ordinance applies to Jackson. * * *
The trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Jackson is affirmed.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, J., concur.
Rucker, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Dickson, J., concurs. [Justice Rucker's dissent concludes] In my view there is no question that Jackson exercised some degree of control over the property notwithstanding he had sold it on contract to Smith. At the very least there is a dispute of fact on this point, and summary judgment in Jackson’s favor was inappropriate. I therefore agree with the Court of Appeals majority and would reverse the judgment of the trial court.
We hold that when a claimant seeks excess damages from the Patient’s Compensation Fund after obtaining a judgment or settlement from a health care provider in a medical malpractice case, the Fund may introduce evidence of the claimant’s preexisting risk of harm if it is relevant to establish the amount of damages, even if it is also relevant to liability issues that are foreclosed by the judgment or settlement. * * *In this case, the Estate filed a petition to access the Fund after settling with the health care providers under an agreement in which the providers contributed a total of $187,001 in cash and payments to purchase an annuity. The Estate and the Fund dispute the meaning of the statutory provision that "liability" is to be treated as "established" by the settlement. The Estate argues that "liability" includes causation and the statute therefore precludes the Fund from introducing evidence related to causation issues. We understand the Estate’s contention to embrace both causation in fact and scope of liability, sometimes described as proximate cause. The Estate thus argues that any evidence of Herbst’s risk of death bears on causation — whether the death results from malpractice — and is therefore precluded. The Fund responds that its evidence is admissible because it is relevant to the amount of damages for which it is liable.
The Medical Malpractice Act does not define "liability." However, the Act provides that undefined legal terms have the meaning consistent with the common law. I.C. § 34-18-2-2. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), liability is the "quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable." To say that one is "liable" does not establish the amount of damages. In this case evidence of Herbst’s underlying risk of death whether or not he was properly treated is relevant to both liability — whether malpractice caused his death — and to damages — the amount for which the Fund is responsible. For this reason, it is admissible and its exclusion was error. * * *
Because the statement of law sought by the Estate at summary judgment was correct on its face, we affirm the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment. The case is remanded for a determination of the extent of the Fund’s liability consistent with the law as explained in this opinion.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court grants transfer and remands, by order
On March 6, by an Order Granting Transfer and Remanding, in the case of Gregory T. Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP), the Court granted transfer, vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the trial court "for further proceedings on Hill's belated motion to correct error." Hill was not advised that he could challenge his sentence on appeal.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Transfer Lists
Ind. Courts - Supreme Court makes two temporary judge appointments [Updated]
Two press releases:
The first, "Indiana Supreme Court Selects Judge Michael Witte to Serve as Temporary Judge in Wayne County", dated March 10th, begins:
The Indiana Supreme Court has named the Honorable G. Michael Witte to serve as temporary judge of Wayne Superior Court 1, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard announced today. Witte replaces Judge P. Thomas Snow, who was recently named Chairman of the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission.Here is the Supreme Court order dated and filed March 10, 2009, appointing Judge Witte as Judge Pro Tempore effective March 16, 2009.The Governor named Judge Snow as chairman, leaving a judicial vacancy in the Wayne Superior Court. According to Indiana Supreme Court trial rules, the vacancy is filled by the Court until the Governor names a successor or, or until further order of the Court. Chief Justice Shepard was appreciative that Judge Witte agreed to serve and said, “Judge Witte has been an integral part of the administration of justice in our state for more than twenty years. He is honest, fair, and thoughtful in his decision making process.”
Witte is currently a senior judge. He was elected to the bench in Dearborn County in 1985. He was the first Asian-American to serve as judge in the state of Indiana.
The second, "Indiana Supreme Court Selects Attorney to Serve as Temporary Judge in Madison County," begins:
The Indiana Supreme Court has named attorney Geoffrey B. Yelton to serve as temporary judge of Madison Superior Court 4, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard announced today. Yelton replaces the Honorable David W. Hopper, who passed away February 25th.Here is the Supreme Court Order, dated and filed March 9th, 2009, appointing Geoffrey B. Yelton as Judge Pro Tempore, effective upon his filing of an appropriate oath.According to Indiana Supreme Court trial rules, a judicial vacancy is filled by the Court until the Governor names a successor or until further order of the Court. Chief Justice Shepard was saddened to hear the news of Judge Hopper’s passing and sends condolences on behalf of the Court to Judge Hopper’s family and his Madison County court family. On February 26th, Chief Shepard opened Court with the following statement, “The Court meets this morning at a moment of sadness for the Indiana Judiciary due to the passing of Judge David Hopper, and we go about our assignment encouraged by the example of his contribution to Justice.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Courts
Courts - More on: SCOTUS rules on impact of public defender delays in getting case to trial
Updating this ILB entry from yesterday, Adam Liptak of the NY Times writes today under the heading: "Justices Rule on Legal Effects of Slow-Moving Cases." Some quotes:
The Supreme Court issued two rulings on Monday concerning the consequences of long delays in the criminal justice system.In one [Thompson v. McNeil], the court declined to hear an appeal from a death row inmate who argued that he should not be executed because the 32 years he spent on death row amounted to cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth Amendment. The court’s decision not to hear the case touched off a lively debate among three justices.
The court also ruled that a Vermont man’s right to a speedy trial had not been violated despite a three-year delay.
When the court accepted the speedy-trial case, Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88, it appeared to be ready to decide whether delays by court-appointed lawyers provided by the state may sometimes amount to a violation of the right. The ordinary rule is that only the prosecution’s delays count against the government.
But the tangled record in the case demonstrated that the defendant, Michael Brillon, had fired one of his lawyers and threatened the life of a second.
Those facts made the case an imperfect vehicle for a broad pronouncement. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, dissented, saying he would have dismissed the appeal.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the seven-justice majority, said delays caused by the defendant or his lawyer, whether court-appointed or not, did not ordinarily count against the speedy-trial clock. “Unlike a prosecutor or the court,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “assigned counsel ordinarily is not considered a state actor.”
Justice Ginsburg left the door open, though, to a challenge where the delay was caused by “a systemic breakdown in the public defender system.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Courts in general
Law - More on "Don’t Rely on Bush’s Signing Statements, Obama Orders"
Updating this ILB entry from yesterday, here is President Obama's 2-page Executive Order on presidential signing statements.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to General Law Related
Environment - "EPA Orders Utilities to Self-Report Coal Ash Impoundment Problems"
From a release posted by the Environment News Service:
WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2009 (ENS) - Responding to the coal ash spill last December at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tennessee, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released a plan intended to prevent threats to human health and the environment from similar incidents.Here are earlier ILB entries on coal ash.The EPA plans to gather coal ash impoundment information from electric utilities nationwide, conduct on-site assessments to determine structural integrity and vulnerabilities, order cleanup and repairs where needed, and develop new regulations for future safety.
The EPA estimates there may be as many as 300 coal ash impoundments across the United States. * * *
In letters today, EPA requested that electric utilities with surface coal ash impoundments or similar units provide information about the structural integrity of their facilities. The federal agency is asking for information about diked or bermed facilities that contain "by-products from the combustion of coal, including but not limited to, fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, or flue gas emission control residuals."
These information requests are legally enforceable and must be responded to fully within 10 days, Jackson said in the letter of request.
Working closely with other federal agencies and the states, EPA will review the information provided by the facilities to identify impoundments or similar units that need priority attention. EPA also will visit many of these facilities to see first hand if the management units are structurally sound.
The agency will require appropriate remedial action at any facility that is found to pose a risk for potential failure.
The assessment and analysis of all such units located at electric utilities will be compiled in a report and made available to the public.EPA is also developing regulations to address the management of coal combustion residuals. Jackson said the agency anticipates having a proposed rule ready for public comment by the end of the year.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Environment
Ind. Courts - State workers lawsuit for back pay during 1973-1993 period begins today
A very brief item today in the Indianapolis Star reports:
In Marion County, the state workers' lawsuit is set for a bench trial before Judge John Hanley. The plaintiffs contend that as many as 15,000 state employees worked 40-hour weeks from 1973 to 1993 but received the same pay as others in similar jobs who worked 37.5 hours.That means the settlement fell through. The ILB has not seen that reported anywhere.A settlement agreement announced in August later was abandoned by the state after compensation claims exceeded its $8.5 million threshold, said John Kautzman, the attorney for several plaintiffs.
On Aug. 19, 2008, the ILB had a lengthy entry headed "Indiana OKs $8.5 million payout to some state workers," reporting on a $8.5 million preliminary settlement reached on the day the lawsuit was scheduled to go to tria in Marion Superior Court. There was one caveat, as set out in the Star story from Aug. 19th:
According to Kautzman, if the calculated total amount exceeds $8.5 million, the state can back out of the settlement and resume trial or pay off the remainder. A tentative hearing is scheduled for mid-October.This ILB entry from Sept. 19, 2008 reported:
Today the ILB received in the mail a "Court-Approved Notice and Claim Form Regarding Brattain, et al. v. Richmond State Hospital, et al." The claim is to be submiited by Nov. 1, 2008 to the Claims Administrator in Milwaukee, WI. If you are a member of the class and wish to object to the terms of the settlement, the notice provides that you must file with the Court no later than Oct. 17, 2008. A website, hoursofworksettlement.com, is listed on the bottom of each page of the mailing.A notice on that website, when I checked it this morning, reads:
This official website is maintained by the claims administrator retained by and under the supervision of Class Counsel and Defense Counsel in the action entitled Brattain et al. v. Richmond State Hospital et al., Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 (the “Action”), which is pending in the State of Indiana, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division.On November 10, 2008, the Defendants exercised their option to terminate the settlement pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, no payments will be made under the settlement agreement. The date for trial has been changed from January 20, 2009, to March 10, 2009.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Posted to Indiana Courts