Disciplinary charges filed against Putnam County judge for alleged bias toward female plaintiff

IL file photo

Disciplinary charges have been filed against a Putnam County judge for his alleged bias against a woman involved in a case he presided over in late 2021 and early 2022.

Putnam County Superior Court Judge Charles Bridges, the only superior court judge in the county, faces two counts of misconduct.

On one count, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications wrote that Bridges violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires the judge to act without bias and to refrain from harassment based on gender.

The commission also alleged Bridges violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Trial Procedure by ruling on motions before letting the opposing party respond by a given deadline and failing to rule on other motions.

James Voyles, Bridges’ attorney, did not immediately respond to Indiana Lawyer’s phone and email requests for comment.

According to court documents, Bridges’ involvement in the case began in December 2021, when he was appointed as special judge over a case between a former couple who were at odds over money made from the sale of the residence they chose together.

In the original complaint, the plaintiff said she was entitled to a portion of the sale under a theory of implied contract to cohabitate because, while the defendant purchased the home, the plaintiff contributed to the rehabilitation and maintenance of it.

Throughout Bridges’ time on the case, he frequently ruled on motions filed by one party without giving the other the chance to respond, or failed to rule on certain motions, according to court documents.

On one occasion, Bridges granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s original complaint without giving the plaintiff adequate time to respond.

A week later, he granted the plaintiff’s motion to correct error without giving the defendant time to respond, ultimately vacating the original order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

During an attorneys-only pretrial conference in March 2022, Bridges reportedly made several remarks expressing his negative perception of the legal cause of action for implied contract/unjust enrichment between two parties who had lived together but weren’t married.

Bridges said, “I don’t know why I get so many of these but I’ve had several of them, honestly, and it’s – so far it’s always been the woman that moved in with a guy and then when things go south she wants half of his sh*t and they were never married and I don’t give it to them.”

A week after the pretrial conference, the attorney for the plaintiff filed a motion requesting Bridges’ recusal, stating he could not be impartial, as shown during the pretrial conference. Bridges did not rule on that motion, according to court documents.

In May 2022, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, who held that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, reversed the court’s order denying the plaintiff’s motion to correct error, reversed the trial court’s order releasing funds from the sale of the home to the defendant, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The appeals court also ruled the plaintiff was entitled to a new judge because Bridges “demonstrated his inability to be impartial,” court documents state.

In a July 2023 opinion on the case, the appeals court said Bridges’ comments during the pretrial conference hearing, “clearly expressed disdain, not only for the type of relief that Stout [the plaintiff] was seeking, but for the gender he believed most often sought this type of relief.”

The Indiana Supreme Court will now decide the next steps in Bridges’ disciplinary case, choosing whether to dismiss the charges, accept or reject a disciplinary agreement between the commission and Bridges, appoint a panel of judges to conduct a public hearing, impose a fine or impose sanctions.

The case is In The Matter of The Honorable Charles D. Bridges, Judge of Putnam Superior Court, 24S-JD-393.