The Indiana Supreme Court amended many of Rules of Court that are effective in 2015. This is a summary of these rules.
Satisfaction/Release of Judgments
Effective July 1, 2015, new Trial Rule 58(D) and amended Small Claims Rule 11(D) provide new identical procedures for the satisfaction/release of a judgment. Upon full payment, including accrued interest and court costs, the judgment creditor is directed to file a satisfaction/release of the judgment and the clerk is directed to note the satisfaction/release of the judgment on the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) and the judgment docket.
New language in the rules provides that the clerk, upon a review of the clerk’s payment records, may, or upon a verified request by the judgment debtor, shall, issue a Notice to the judgment creditor that a judgment, including accrued interest and court costs, has been paid in full and should be satisfied/released. The clerk’s Notice is sent to the judgment creditor and debtor at the addresses shown on the CCS and an entry of the issuance of the Notice is made on the CCS.
The judgment creditor has 30 days after the issuance of the Notice to file a verified objection. If the judgment creditor does not file either a verified objection or a satisfaction/release, the judgment will be deemed satisfied/released and the clerk will note the satisfaction/release of the judgment on the CCS and the judgment docket.
Case Numbers for Guardianships
Administrative Rule 1(B)(4)(d) is a new provision, also effective July 1, 2015, clarifying the assignment of case numbers in guardianship cases. The new language requires the clerk to assign a separate Guardianship (GU) case number to each individual, adult or juvenile who is the subject of an application to establish a guardianship. The rule provides that each case number shall be counted as a case on the court’s quarterly case status report.
However, notwithstanding the assignment of separate case numbers, in situations when the guardianship is sought for 2 or more minors or incapacitated persons who are children of a common parent, parent and child, or husband and wife, only a single probate filing fee shall be charged as provided by I.C. 29-3-5-6 and the applications may be joined for hearing.
Expungement cases
Also, effective July 1, 2015, Administrative Rule 8(B) is amended to provide a new case type “XP” that will be used for expungement petitions filed under I.C. 35-38-9 et seq.
Criminal Rule 25
On December 18, 2013, the Court created Criminal Rule 25, providing counsel for children in juvenile cases, effective January 1, 2015. On October 30, 2014, the new rule was amended to provide that before any hearing (the original rule provided “before any proceeding”) at which the court may find facts or the child may admit facts that could result in wardship, placement or confinement, the child is entitled to counsel unless waived. Further, on April 8, 2015, the rule was again amended, this time deleting language that would require appointment of counsel for a child when the child was taken into custody and detained pursuant to I.C. 31-37-4-1 or 2.
Professional Conduct Rule 6.7
On April 30, 2015, the Court amended this rule dealing with reporting pro bono legal services.
The amended rule, which was effective immediately, provides that attorneys are required to report three broad categories of pro bono service. First, are pro bono legal service hours provided to individuals reasonably believed to be of limited means without charge and without fee expectation when the services were rendered.
Second, are pro bono legal service hours provided at a charge of less than 50% of an attorney’s normal rate and without expectation of any greater fee when the services were rendered.
Third, there are financial contributions made to the Indiana Bar Foundation, to any of the local IRC 501(c)(3) pro bono districts listed on the Supreme Court website, or to a legal service organization located in Indiana that is eligible for fee waiver under I.C. 33-37-3-2(B b); or, in-kind contributions of tangible property to one or more of the foregoing qualifying legal service organizations or local pro bono districts.
The Rule makes clear that it only requires reporting on a subset of legal services encouraged under Rule 6.1. The information collected under the rule is confidential and shall not be publicly disclosed.