RUCKER, Justice.
This is a mandate action involving a dispute between the Center Township of Marion County Small Claims Court and the Center Township Trustee and Advisory Board over court renovations, additional staff, increase in salaries, and the location of the court. As explained below we approve the renovations, additional staff, and the mandate prohibiting the relocation of the court. We disapprove the mandated salary increases.
From time to time — as has happened in the case before us — disagreement over court resources between a judge and local government will prove to be so intractable as to require litigation. In 1976, this Court adopted Trial Rule 60.5 establishing orderly procedures for the resolution of intracounty disagreements about court resources. "We adopted the rule after studying the report of a legislative joint committee that held hearings attended by judges and by many representatives of county government." St. Joseph Cnty. Comm'rs. v. Nemeth (In re Mandate of Funds), 929 N.E.2d 703, 707 (Ind.2010) (internal citation omitted).
In 2008, an informal working group of county government representatives and trial court judges proposed several changes to Trial Rule 60.5. For example, "they suggested that the rule explicitly provide for referring such disagreements to mediation;" that "when it became necessary to appoint a special judge to adjudicate
The procedures established by Trial Rule 60.5 "are infrequently invoked in Indiana." Montgomery Cnty. Council v. Milligan (In re Mandate of Funds), 873 N.E.2d 1043, 1045 (Ind.2007). And although the typical mandate proceeding involves a disagreement about court funding, we have held that the procedures of Trial Rule 60.5 apply to mandates other than those involving court funding, including disputes over the location of court offices. See In re Assignment of Courtrooms, Judge's Offices, and Other Court Facilities of St. Joseph Super. Ct., 715 N.E.2d 372, 373 n. 1 (Ind.1999). In this case the procedures of Trial Rule 60.5 have been employed to settle a dispute not only about the funding for court operations, but also the relocation of the court itself.
In most Indiana counties, small claims cases
In essence, the Marion County small claims courts are township-level judicial entities; and for some time there has been tension between these courts and the township governing bodies with regard to control of court activities. The busiest of
In 2006, the then-Center Township Small Claims Court judge, the Honorable Paula Lopossa, filed a complaint for mandate enjoining the then-trustee, Carl Drummer, from "hiring, supervising, and disciplining" the court's clerks and declaring that the court has the sole authority to hire, supervise, and discipline its employees, prepare and submit its annual budget, and to order its own equipment and supplies. Joint Exhibits at 201-202. The complaint also alleged that the 1,615 square feet of workspace then allocated for court operations in the City-County Building in downtown Indianapolis was insufficient, though Judge Lopossa requested no relief in this regard. See id. at 200.
After her election to the Center Township Small Claims Court bench in 2007, Judge Michelle Smith Scott was substituted as the plaintiff in the court's complaint against Trustee Drummer. Judge Scott and Trustee Drummer subsequently negotiated a compromise and the complaint originated by Judge Lopossa was dismissed in 2009. However, this did not end the tension about administrative authority over the court. The record shows that after taking office in January 2011, the then newly-elected Center Township Trustee, Eugene Akers, continued the practice of exercising control over the court's budgets, funds, and employees. See, e.g., Tr. at 110-14, 162-63 (Trustee Akers' testimony that the Small Claims Court clerks and other staff members reported to the Trustee, not to Judge Scott); Tr. at 160 (Trustee Akers' testimony that he required court employees to recite the Township Mission Statement upon his request); see also Appellant's Verified Statement at 3 (acknowledging that the Trustee and/or Center Township "unintentional[ly]" failed to notify Judge Scott before extending offers to new court employees and failed to notify the Judge of their hire until the business day before they reported to work in Judge Scott's court).
Sometime in early spring of 2011, Trustee Akers advanced a plan to relocate the Center Township Small Claims Court from its small space in the basement of the City-County Building to a larger, more modern facility in the township-owned Carson Center on Fall Creek Parkway in Indianapolis and to renovate the Carson Center space to accommodate the court. The Trustee first advised Judge Scott of his plan on June 7, 2011. At a public hearing the next day the Trustee presented the plan to the Center Township Advisory Board. Judge Scott attended the June 8 meeting and asked the Trustee and the Board to take various concerns of hers into consideration before deciding to move the court. See Joint Exhibits at 33-34. On June 13 Judge Scott sent a letter to the Board president offering, in conjunction with the Office of State Court Administration, technical assistance for a feasibility study on moving the court, for the purpose of obtaining "an objective opinion by an individual experienced in Court Operations." Id. at 39. Judge Scott opined that the cost of such a study "may be underwritten and likely free." Id. Another Board meeting was held on July 18, at which Trustee Akers stated "A Feasibility Study ... will cost more than I am going to spend." Id. at 42. Instead the Trustee conducted what he characterized as a
Having been unsuccessful in resolving the relocation issue through other avenues and pursuant to her authority under Indiana Trial Rule 60.5, Judge Scott, on behalf of the Small Claims Court (collectively, the "Court") issued an "Order For Mandate And Mandate Of Funds" directing the Trustee and the Advisory Board (collectively, the "Township") to show cause why:
Joint Exhibits at 1. The Order specifically mandated:
Id. at 1-2.
The Township opposed the Mandate Order and filed with this Court a motion to dismiss. Noting that "an overriding issue presented in this matter is the fundamental question of access to justice," this Court on December 9, 2011 denied the Township's motion
Trial Rule 60.5 provides that the special judge's decree be reviewed by this Court unless the responsible governmental entities expressly waive review. Review was not waived here, so this Court issued an order governing briefing and the filing of the record on appeal. The parties concluded briefing on October 19, 2012, and we took the matter under advisement. The Township appeals aspects of the decree;
It bears repeating that disputes between the judiciary and governmental legislative and executive authorities, if they cannot otherwise be resolved, are governed by Indiana Trial Rule 60.5, which provides in relevant part:
T.R. 60.5(B). Where there is a clear and present danger of impairment of a court's operation, a mandate action is proper. St. Joseph Cnty. Comm'rs. v. Nemeth, 929 N.E.2d at 710 (citing Montgomery Cnty. Council, 873 N.E.2d at 1046). The special judge's role in a mandate proceeding is to determine whether the mandated funds or actions are reasonably necessary for the operation of the courts and court-related functions, and whether any other governmental interests are so severely and adversely affected by the order as to require it to be set aside. See id.; In re Assignment of Courtrooms, 715 N.E.2d at 375; Morgan Cir. Ct. v. Morgan Cnty. Council, 550 N.E.2d 1303, 1304 (Ind.1990). When we review the special judge's decree, "we do not ordinarily reevaluate the evidence and we will affirm the decree if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment." In re Assignment of Courtrooms, 715 N.E.2d at 375 (citing In re Mandate of Funds for the Brown Cir. Ct., 507 N.E.2d 583, 584 (Ind.1987)). But given the "profound public interest in open and functioning courts and our special knowledge of trial court operations," we retain "a measure of authority to weigh and evaluate the evidence in reviewing the judgment of the special judge." Morgan Cir. Ct., 550 N.E.2d at 1304.
In this case the Township expressly does not contest that portion of the special judge's decree directing that the Court — without the intervention of the Trustee — shall control the supervising, hiring, and firing of court staff; or ordering the Trustee to relinquish control over the Small Claims Court's financial operations. See Br. of Appellants at 40. This is of course as it should be. See Bd. of Comm'rs. of Crawford Cnty. v. Riddle, 493 N.E.2d 461, 463 (Ind.1986) (declaring a court "cannot be controlled, directed, or impeded in its functions by any other department of government"). Also, the Township does not object to allocating funds for two additional full-time staff members for the court. Instead, the Township complains only about that portion of the decree concerning the court's location and the award of attorney fees.
The Township urges that the decree ordering the Small Claims Court to remain in the City-County Building and directing the Township to provide reconfigured space and new furniture and equipment should be reversed. In support of its position the Township calls our attention to numerous facts and arguments favoring relocation. From these, we distill two relevant contentions: (1) the Mandate Order adversely affects governmental interests, namely: the interest of the Board
With respect to the first contention the Township's argument can best be summarized as follows: the exercise of joint authority over the decision concerning the Court's location was rendered a nullity when Judge Scott mandated that the court remain in its present location. According to the Township there is no "`joint' exercise of any authority" where a court can resort to mandate "any time the Legislative and Executive branches refuse to adopt the Judiciary's position on a dispute over court facilities...." Br. of Appellants at 43.
We first observe that it is certainly correct to say that the Township's statutory responsibility to "provide a courtroom and an office for each judge in a convenient location within the township," I.C. § 33-34-6-1,
In essence, although the Township and the Small Claims Court judge exercise joint authority with respect to the location of the court facility, the question presented is how to resolve a dispute over the exercise of that joint authority. The special judge reached a common sense resolution: "unless and until Center Township engages in a collaborative decision-making process involving all three co-equal branches of government, Center Township should not be permitted to relocate the Court to the Carson Center." App. at 46. The Township counters that its decision to move the court's location was taken only after a public meeting in compliance with Indiana statutory authority, thus giving "a voice to all three co-equal branches of government." Br. of Appellants at 38 (internal quotation marks omitted).
App. at 40. In the end, absent the Township (i) "adequately involv[ing] the court," (ii) "engag[ing] in meaningful dialogue or exchange of ideas with the presiding judge" and instead (iii) "ignor[ing]" the court's "suggestions and efforts" the Judge of the Center Township Small Claims Court was left only with the option of mandate where she was of the view that there was a clear and present danger of impairment of the court's operation.
The Township contends the Mandate Order should be set aside because relocating the court presents no clear and present danger of impairment of court operations. The Township rests this conclusion on the present condition of the court facilities in the City-County Building, its supposition that such conditions will not be ameliorated by expanded and reconfigured space and furniture, the availability of the newly-renovated Carson Center space, and the fact that most court employees support the move. See Br. of Appellants at 45-46, 49-51. On review of this mandate order, our
As we previously observed, an overriding issue presented in this case is the fundamental question of access to justice. Indeed, providing such access is a constitutionally-mandated function of Indiana courts. See Ind. Const. art. 1, § 12 ("All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay."). It is undisputed that the Small Claims Court is presently centrally located in Center Township and is in close proximity to all (and within easy walking distance to most) public bus routes in the township and Marion County. Further, there is no dispute that the court is located in the same building as multiple other Marion County Courts and public services frequently used by litigants. We also find it relevant that the court in this case, as with most small claims courts, hears a substantial volume of consumer collection cases and landlord-tenant disputes such as evictions. See Tr. at 185, 310. According to a comprehensive study of legal needs of the poor in Indiana, it is precisely these types of cases that most frequently plague low-income Hoosiers. See Indiana State Bar Association, et al., Unequal Access to Justice: A Comprehensive Study of the Civil Legal Needs of the Poor in Indiana 80-83 (2008), available at www.indianalegalservices.org/files/ilsi-unequal-access-2008-full.pdf. And it is also worth noting that the Center Township Small Claims Court is not only in the same building, but is on the same floor as courts handling paternity and child support, domestic violence, and protective orders — services also of particular relevance to this demographic. See id. at 81-85.
In sum, we conclude the record is replete with probative evidence that moving the Center Township Small Claims Court away from its present location poses a clear and present danger to access to justice for the litigants it serves, and that maintaining and upgrading the Court in its present location is reasonably necessary to preserve that access. And although the Township does not object to other components of the special judge's decree, see Br. of Appellants at 40, we think it bears emphasizing that we specifically affirm the special judge's order that the Township shall allocate funds to hire two additional Court employees, that the Trustee shall relinquish control over Court functions, and that authority over its employees and its financial operations shall be vested solely in the Court. See supra n. 6; see also Task Force Report at 19, 24, 25 (concluding that township courts must have sole authority over their employees and their financial operations).
Finally, we address attorney fees. Because the proper delivery of judicial services is often at stake in Trial Rule 60.5 proceedings, we have acknowledged the propriety of reasonable compensation for attorneys who represent courts in such matters. See St. Joseph Cnty. Cmm'rs., 929 N.E.2d at 720 (citing Montgomery Cnty. Council, 873 N.E.2d at 1049; Kramer v. Hancock Cnty. Ct., 448 N.E.2d 1190, 1192 (Ind.1983)). The factors to be considered
On review the Township makes no claim concerning the reasonableness of the fees and expenses requested, reserving any such issue for an evidentiary hearing before the special judge. Instead, in a one-paragraph argument, the Township contends "This Court should deny Judge Scott's fee request." Br. of Appellants at 51. The Township's contention is premised on the fact that over and above her statutory salary, Judge Scott also received additional revenue for performing wedding ceremonies in her capacity as a judge. According to the Township Judge Scott's motivation in issuing the order of Mandate was to prevent the Court from relocating in an effort "to preserve and protect her own personal stream of income." Id. We make the following observations. First, although the special judge determined that "[o]ne consideration" for Judge Scott not wanting the Court to relocate to the Carson Center was the potential loss of wedding income, the special judge specifically found, "[t]he concern that Judge Scott's Mandate Action was motivated by a perceived loss of wedding income results from speculation and is unsupported by credible evidence." App. at 26 (emphasis added). Second, and more importantly the question here is not Judge Scott's motivation, but rather whether mandate was necessitated by a clear and present danger of impairment of the court's operation. See St. Joseph Cnty. Cmm'rs., 929 N.E.2d at 710. As recounted above, there was sufficient evidence presented to the special judge that the mandated action was reasonably necessary for the operation of the court and court-related functions, and that any other governmental interests were not so severely and adversely affected by the order as to require Order of Mandate be set aside. See In re Assignment of Courtrooms, 715 N.E.2d at 375; Morgan Cir. Ct., 550 N.E.2d at 1304.
We affirm the decree of the special judge.
DICKSON, C.J., and DAVID, MASSA and RUSH, JJ., concur.
App. at 47-48. With respect to the authority of the Court maintaining control over its finances, we would add that of course any such authority must be exercised consistent with the requirements of the State Board of Accounts.
I.C. § 33-34-6-1. Further, the Township is required to furnish equipment, supplies, and staff to the small claims court. See I.C. §§ 33-34-6-2 and -3.
Section 33-34-1-9 further requires:
