Highland County Common Pleas Court issues 2012 annual report

2012 YEAR END REPORT
HIGHLAND COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISIONS

This is the fifth annual report prepared for the purpose of informing the public of the activities of the Court during the past year and comparing the case filings for the Court for the past several years.  

CASE MANAGEMENT

Attached to this report is a copy of the 2012 annual totals of the monthly reports required to be filed with the Supreme Court by the 15^th of each month showing the case activity for the previous month.  As of December 31, 2012, there were 233 total cases pending in the General Division, compared to 284 pending as of December 31, 2011 representing a decrease of 18%. In the Domestic Relations Division, there were 67 cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 97 at the end of 2010, representing a decrease of 31%.

The Supreme Court has adopted time guidelines within which cases should be completed.  For example, the time guideline for criminal cases is six months from the date of arraignment. The guideline for foreclosures to be complete is twelve months from date of filing and for most other civil cases it is twenty-four months. There have been no past pending criminal cases in the General Division of this Court since April of 2009 and no past pending civil cases since March of 2010.  There have been no past pending cases in the Domestic Relations Division since March of 2010.  

The Court has the monthly reports submitted to the Supreme Court dating back to 1972. Prior to 2009, there were no monthly reports filed in which there no past pending cases were reported at the end of that month in either division of this Court. 

YEARLY CASELOAD COMPARISONS

Attached to this report is a copy of the summary of annual case filings for the General and Domestic Relations Divisions for the years 2003-2012.  These reflect both new and reopened cases filed in the categories which are reported monthly to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The total number of new and reopened cases filed in the General Division in 2012 was 771 compared to 726 cases in 2011 which represents an increase of 6%.  The total of new and reopened cases in Domestic Relations was 382 compared to 422 cases in 2011 which represents a decrease of 9%.  The total number of cases in both divisions was 1152 compared to 1148 in 2011. The total number of cases filed in both divisions in 2010 was 1366. 

CRIMINAL CASES

There were 228 new criminal cases filed in 2012 compared to 180 in 2011 which represents an increase of 27%.  There were 9 criminal cases reopened in 2012 compared to 13 in 2011.  The total of new and reopened criminal cases for 2012 was 237 compared to 193 in 2011.

Prior to 2010, the number of annual criminal cases had been decreasing since 2006. It should be noted that these statistics do not include any post-sentencing proceedings in criminal cases such as probation violations, restitution hearings, modification of probation conditions and other proceedings that occur in many cases after they are closed for current reporting purposes.  

FORECLOSURE FILINGS

There were 278 new foreclosure cases and 10 reopened cases filed in 2012 for a total of 288.  This compares to 262 new cases and 11 reopened cases for a total of 273 in 2010 and constitutes an increase of 2%. The number of foreclosure cases filed in this court had increased annually from 2003 until 2010. The largest number of foreclosures filed since 2003 was in 2009 when there were 381 filed. 

The Court instituted a new program regarding mediation of foreclosure cases. Instead of referring the case to a mediator for a court ordered session that may last 1-2 hours, the Judge now conducts conference calls with the lender’s attorney and the homeowners’ attorney or if they are unrepresented, with the homeowners themselves, in every case in which the homeowners indicate that they are trying to obtain a loan modification or mortgage assistance from one of the foreclosure assistance programs.  

During these conference calls which usually last 15-20 minutes possible options for the homeowners are discussed.  They are informed of the requirements for the various programs and the procedures to obtain a loan modification or foreclosure assistance.

The Judge sets another telephone conference usually in 45-60 days to allow time for the applications to be completed and reviewed. If necessary, further conferences are scheduled to monitor the situation. In many of these cases, the homeowners are able to obtain a loan modification or to bring their loan current and the cases are dismissed.   

OTHER CIVIL CASES

There were 246 other types of new and reopened civil cases filed in 2012 compared to 261 filed in 2011. This is a decrease of 6% and is the third consecutive year that civil case filings have decreased.  In 2010, the number of civil case filings was 313, the largest number since 2003. 

JURY TRIALS

Judge Coss conducted jury trials in 7 criminal cases. In 2010 there were 10 jury trials. Since Judge Coss became Judge in August of 2008, the Court has been averaging slightly less than one jury trial per month.

COURT TECHNOLOGY
VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT SYSTEM

Since the implementation of the video arraignment system in March of 2009, the Court has conducted 1,033 video hearings including 161 for prisoners in state prisons or other out of county facilities.  This is an average of approximately 22 hearings per month.  In 2012, the Court conducted 250 video hearings, 33 of which were for prisoners in state prisons or other out of county facilities.

These video hearings have saved the Sheriff’s Department thousands of dollars in costs of transporting prisoners to court from the local jail or from the out of county locations and supervising them in custody during their time in the courthouse.  It also allows the Court to conduct the hearings more quickly since it is much easier to get the prisoner to the video room as opposed to arranging for transport to the courthouse. 

WEBSITE

The Court’s website which became operational in February 0f 2011 has become a very valuable asset to both the county and the public. The website contains the calendars for the general and domestic relations divisions as well as court indexes and dockets.  

Visitors to the site can view and download the local court rules and appendices. They can also view the events scheduled in a case and the past events in the docket. There is also a juror information page for potential jurors to learn about jury service and an announcement box for announcements about jury trials and other events taking place in the court. 

A new feature that was added is the ability to pay court costs online.  The Clerk of Courts implemented the credit card service last year.  The Court website now has a “pay court costs” button on the website which people can use in lieu of mailing checks or coming to the Clerk’s office in person.

The usage reports for the website for 2012 indicates that there were over 74,000 visits in 2012 which represents a daily average of 203 visits. This indicates that many people are using the website to check the court’s records and calendars which represents a significant reduction in the time that staff of the Court and the Clerk’s Office would have spent in answering inquiries made either in person or by telephone.

JURY MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

The Court’s software vendor obtained a new jury management software program which was installed as part of the CourtView Case Management System utilized by the Clerk of Courts and the Court.  This program will help the Court implement some of it goals in jury management which includes reducing the number of persons drawn for possible jury service in the Common Pleas Court each year, reducing the number of days that jurors are scheduled to report during a term and other measures to improve the jury experience better for our citizens.

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

The Court’s general fund budget for 2012 was $198,846.02 which is less than the Court’s 1998 general fund budget. The actual general fund expenditures for 2012 were $188,085.95 which was $10,760.07 or 5% less than the amount appropriated by the County Commissioners. 

The Court has continued to utilize aggressive cost containment measures for its expenses. These include in addition to the video arraignment system, using email notices to attorneys, parties and jurors when available instead of mail notices, reducing the use of paid foreign judges by Judge Coss’ exchanging service as a visiting judge with judges of adjoining counties at no cost to either county, monitoring usage of postage, supplies and various other measures.

Anyone having any questions about this report or the court’s activities and operations is welcome to contact the Court.

Judge Rocky A. Coss
Highland County Common Pleas Court