October 31, 2011 by Jeffrey Wiese Published in Indiana Court Times

A high profile working group has been formed to review the laws and rules involving one of the most critical records in Indiana’s judicial system—the judgment docket. The judgment docket serves as notice to all interested parties that a judgment exists and is a lien on the real property of the defendant.

The use of judgment dockets can be traced to the time of King Henry VIII (1509 – 1547). In his time, court case records were kept on long rolls of parchment, sometimes called “pipe rolls” or “court rolls” because of their shape. These records were in chronological order with the record of one case ending and the next beginning on the same roll. As you can imagine, it was very difficult to locate the record of a particular case. To avoid “unrolling” these parchments, they began the practice of keeping a separate index roll, called the judgment docket. The docket contained judgment information by case and was arranged alphabetically by the first letter of the debtor’s last name.

Judgment dockets have been used in Indiana since it achieved statehood in 1816. The Revised Statutes of 1831 give these directions regarding the judgment docket:

Chapter XLI, 24

That for the benefit of purchasers and others, the clerk of any court of record shall keep a book in which during every term of such court, or within thirty days thereafter, he shall docket all judgments rendered at such term, for any sum of money, in alphabetical order, by the surname of the party against whom such judgment may have been rendered, and shall enter therein the parties to such judgment, both plaintiffs and defendants, the date of the rendition of such judgment, and the amount of debt, damages and costs thereby recovered; and such docketing shall be matter of record, and open to the inspection of all persons at reasonable times;

Compare this to I.C. 33-32-3-2 and I.C. 33-32-3-3:

I.C. 33-32-3-2

(a) The clerk shall keep a circuit court judgment docket.
(b) Upon the filing in the office of the clerk a statement or transcript of any judgment for the recovery of money or costs, the clerk shall enter, and index in alphabetical order, in this judgment docket a statement of the judgment showing the following:

(1) The names of all the parties.
(2) The name of the court.
(3) The number of the cause.
(4) The book and page of the record in which the judgment is recorded.
(5) The date the judgment is entered and indexed.
(6) The date of the rendition of judgment.
(7) The amount of the judgment and the amount of costs.

I.C. 33-32-3-3

The circuit court judgment docket is a public record that is open during the usual hours of transacting business for examination by any person.

Look’s familiar, doesn’t it?

These are some of the problems with our current judgment docket system that must be addressed:

• The judgment docket contains not only information about court judgments, it also contains entries for “judgments” created by statute such as:
  • failure of railroad company to repair or improve that portion of the street occupied by its track (see I.C. 8-6-12-2);
  • removal of signs that are public nuisance (see I.C. 8-23-20-26);
  • tax warrants (see I.C. 6-8.1-8-2); and
  • liens for unsafe building repairs (see I.C. 36-7-9-13).
• The judgment docket is a tool meant to be usable by the public to locate judgments; however, the public has no way of knowing where a particular judgment is recorded. A recent survey of the Indiana Code found statutory authority for at least 198 judgment dockets. There is no cross referencing of these judgment dockets.
• There is no consistency from county to county or even court to court within the same county about how judgment dockets are kept. Some counties still keep actual judgment docket books; some keep this record electronically; some record unpaid court costs and fines, and some do not.
• Party Identification issues exist. There may be many James Smiths in a county. How can we ensure the judgment docket properly identifies the specific James Smith related to the judgment?
• Confidentiality issues exist. Some juvenile cases contain orders for restitution. According to statute, restitution orders should be recorded in the judgment docket; however, juvenile cases are confidential. How should this be handled?

Recognizing the need to clarify the laws and rules governing the judgment docket, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Records Management Committee formed a task force to study the existing laws and practices and make recommendations for improvement. The task force is comprised of stakeholders from every entity with an interest in the judgment docket.

The Indiana Supreme Court appointed Justice Steven David to chair of the task force, which consists of the following members:

Carmel City Court Brian G. Poindexter was selected to participate in The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) which is the U.S. Department of State’s premier professional exchange program.

On March 28, 2011 Judges from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, West Bank of Palestine, and one Member of Parliament from Jordan visited with Judge Poindexter in Carmel City Court.  The objectives of the project are:

•          To familiarize participants with the principles of judicial independence, the Federal court system, and the structure of state and municipal courts;

•          To underscore the judiciary’s role in preserving and strengthening democratic concepts such as government accountability and individual rights;

•          To discuss court and case management advanced legal education, the criminal justice system, and law enforcement in the U.S.;

•          To promote understanding of current trends in the administration of courts in the U.S.; and

•          To examine various forms of dispute resolution.

Judge Poindexter was impressed by how eager the visiting Judges were to learn about our system of justice.  A wide variety of topics were covered during the meeting.  Judge Poindexter has participated in previous programs that involved visiting judges from Russia, China, and the Ukraine. 

International Visitors travel to the U.S. for carefully designed programs that reflect their professional interests and U.S. foreign policy goals.  Visitors also share their culture and offer insight on best practices and perspectives with their American hosts.

Carmel City Court has a brand new website.  This website is provided by the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) to the citizens of Carmel at no additional cost. 

Recognizing the very real and growing concerns about local budgets and government expenditures Judge Poindexter looked for ways to reduce the cost to the Carmel taxpayer of operating the court while still maintaining a high level of service.   Having already partnered with the State Court Administrator’s Office,   for the delivery of the Odyssey case management system and the electronic citation and warning system, Judge Poindexter once again contacted JTAC. 

JTAC’s website development team quickly began working with Judge Poindexter, the sole judge in Carmel City Court, to develop an easy to use and easy to manage website.  JTAC and Judge Poindexter began addressing simple matters that affect residents of Carmel and other visitors to Carmel City Court.  The website can be updated to meet the changing demands in a modern court.

JTAC provided Carmel City Court its own local website, provided at no charge to the city or the court. JTAC will absorb the costs of developing and hosting the website and after a site is published, the local court will have the ability to edit and maintain their own website.  Naturally, JTAC will provide technical support as needed. 

The Carmel City Court’s new website a details upcoming holiday closings, provides information about the court’s hours of operation, holidays, how to find the court, and helpful links to other city and county officials. The new website also provides a lengthy set of FAQs for the public to help in understanding how trials are conducted, what to expect in court, and how to easily pay fines and court costs online.

Recently I passed a car plastered with signs announcing that it belonged to a local driving school.  In the driver’s seat was a fresh scrubbed teenager with both hands gripping the wheel tightly at “ten and two”.   The passenger seat was occupied by an instructor patiently giving directions to the student driver.   All appeared to be going smoothly while the two were paired together in the car moving along Main Street.

There will come a time when that young driver and thousands of other young drivers will be turned loose to drive without a parent or instructor in the car.  Unfortunately, it is during those times that things do not always go smoothly.  Young drivers, ages 15 – 20 years old, are especially vulnerable to death and injury on our roadways.  Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers in America.  Mile for mile, teenagers are involved in three times as many fatal crashes as all other drivers.

Research confirms that inexperience and immaturity combined with speed, drinking and driving, not wearing seat belts, distracted driving, drowsy driving, nighttime driving, and other drug use aggravate the problem of teen-related crashes.  Distracted driving is a term that has emerged recently and would include using a cell phone or texting while driving.

In Indiana if you are younger than 18 years of age when you obtain a driver’s license, your license is considered probationary until your turn 18 years old.  While you have a probationary driver’s license it is against the law for you to operate a motor vehicle and use a communication device, such as a cell phone, unless you are calling 911.

Individuals that violate this law are subject to fines of up to five hundred dollars, suspension of their driving privileges, and may be required to attend a defensive driving course.