Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a public reprimand for a Putnam County judge who was found to have engaged in judicial misconduct for making injudicious comments about women bringing property claims against their former cohabitating partners.
The case against Putnam Supeiror Judge Charles D. Bridges was brought to the high court in December.
It stems from a November 2021 complaint a woman filed against her former romantic partner, arguing she was entitled to some of the proceeds made from the sale of the home she and the man shared. According to the complaint, the house was in the partner’s name, but the woman helped maintain and rehabilitate it.
During an attorneys-only pretrial conference in March 2022, Bridges allegedly made several remarks expressing his negative perception of the legal cause of action between two parties who had lived together but weren’t married.
Bridges allegedly 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.”
He also allegedly said, “I’m just saying my position is regardless of what everyone else’s position is in Indianapolis, that’s what the Court of Appeals [is] for, if she wasn’t — if they weren’t married and she lived there and had the benefit of living there and she wants to claim what everybody calls ‘sweat equity,’ bullsh-t, ain’t no ‘sweat equity’ in this court.”
Prior to this case, Bridges was issued two prior private cautions for violating Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct rules in 2015 and 2019.
In considering those past cases and the current violation, the parties agreed that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.
James Voyles, the attorney for Bridges, told Indiana Lawyer he does not speak on his clients’ matters.
The supreme court accepted the parties’ agreement, stating Bridges’ on-the-record statements about “women that kind of make a habit of” litigating unjust enrichment claims, “called into question his ability to preside impartially over the cases that come before him.”
“These comments, particularly Respondent’s statement that ‘that’s what the Court of Appeals [is] for,’ further suggest a reluctance to uphold the rule of law in situations where the facts don’t ‘[sit] well’ with him,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote.
The case is In the Matter of the Honorable Charles D. Bridges, 24S-JD-393.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.