(A) Scope of mandate. Courts shall limit their requests for funds to those which are reasonably necessary for the operation of the court or court-related functions. Mandate will not lie for extravagant, arbit- rary or unwarranted expenditures nor for personal expenditures (e.g., personal telephone bills, bar association memberships, disciplinary fees). Prior to issuing the order, the court shall meet with the mandated party to demonstrate the need for said funds. At any time in the process, the dispute may be submitted to mediation by agreement of the parties or by order of the Supreme Court or the special judge.
Rule 60.5.Mandate of funds
Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceTrial Rule 60.5 lets an Indiana trial court order a city, county, or other local government to appropriate or pay funds the court needs to operate, carried out through a bench trial before a specially appointed judge and automatic review by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Full Text of Rule 60.5
(B) Procedure. Whenever a court, except the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, desires to order either a municipality, a political subdivision of the state, or an officer of either to appropriate or to pay unappropriated funds for the operation of the court or court-related functions, such court shall issue and cause to be served upon such municipality, political subdivision or officer an order to show cause why such appropriation or payment should not be made. Such order to show cause shall be captioned “Order for Mandate of Funds”. The matter shall be set for trial on the merits of such order to show cause unless the legislative body, the chief exec- utive officer or the affected officer files a waiver in writing of such a trial and agrees to make such appropriation or payment. The trial shall be without a jury, before a special judge of the court that made the order. There shall be no change of venue from the county or from the special judge appointed by the Supreme Court. The court shall promptly notify the Supreme Court of the entry of such order to show cause and the Supreme Court shall then appoint as special judge an attorney who is not a current or former regular judge and who does not reside nor regularly practice law in the county issuing the Order of Mandate of Funds or in any county contiguous thereto. If the appointed judge fails to qualify within seven [7] days after he has received notice of his appointment, the Supreme Court shall follow the same pro- cedure until an appointed judge does properly qualify. Unless expressly waived by the respondent in writing within thirty (30) days after the entering of the trial judge’s decree, a decree or order mandating the payment of funds for the operation of the court or court- related functions shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. Promptly on expir- ation of such thirty (30) day period, the trial judge shall certify such decree together with either a stipulation of facts or an electronic transcription of the evidence to the Supreme Court. No motion to correct error nor notice of appeal shall be filed. No mandate order for appropriation or payment of funds made by any court other than the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals shall direct that attorney fees be paid at a rate greater than the reasonable and customary hourly rate for an attorney in the county. No mandate order shall be effective unless it is entered after trial as herein provided and until the order has been reviewed by the Supreme Court or such review is expressly waived as herein provided.
Amendment History
This rule’s current text took effect February 4, 2009. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Plain-English Summary
Trial Rule 60.5 gives Indiana trial courts — everyone but the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — a way to require a municipality, political subdivision, or local officer to appropriate or pay funds the court needs to keep functioning. Subdivision (A) keeps that power in check: a court can mandate only funds that are reasonably necessary for its operation or court-related functions, not extravagant or arbitrary spending, and not personal expenses like a phone bill, bar dues, or disciplinary fees. Before issuing an order, the court has to meet with the government body it wants to mandate and show why the money is needed, and the dispute can go to mediation at any point, either by agreement or by order of the Supreme Court or the special judge.
Subdivision (B) lays out the procedure. The court issues an order to show cause, captioned “Order for Mandate of Funds,” and the matter heads to a bench trial unless the government body waives the trial in writing and agrees to pay. There is no jury, and the trial takes place before a special judge — an attorney who has never been a regular judge and does not live or practice in the county issuing the order or in a neighboring county — whom the Supreme Court appoints once it is notified that the order to show cause has been filed. Venue cannot be changed away from the county or from the special judge. Unless the government body waives review in writing within thirty days of the trial judge’s decree, the Indiana Supreme Court automatically reviews every order mandating funds; there is no ordinary motion to correct error or notice of appeal. The trial judge certifies the decree, along with either a stipulation of facts or a transcript of the evidence, to the Supreme Court once the thirty-day window closes. A mandate order also cannot direct attorney fees above the reasonable, customary hourly rate for the county, and no order takes effect until it has gone through trial and either been reviewed by the Supreme Court or had that review expressly waived.
There is no federal counterpart to this rule. It grows out of the judiciary’s own constitutional authority to keep functioning independently of the other branches of government, and it exists because a court’s budget in Indiana comes from a city or county government that the court cannot otherwise compel to act.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a mandate of funds under Indiana Trial Rule 60.5?
It is a court order directing a municipality, political subdivision, or local officer to appropriate or pay money the court needs to operate. Courts use it when the local government responsible for funding the court has not provided what the court considers reasonably necessary.
Which Indiana courts can use Rule 60.5?
Any Indiana trial court except the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Those two courts are not covered by this rule’s mandate procedure.
Can a local government just refuse to pay and ignore the order?
Not without consequence. Once a court issues an order to show cause, the legislative body, chief executive, or affected officer either has to waive a trial and agree to pay, or contest the order at a bench trial before a special judge appointed by the Supreme Court.
Is there a jury in a mandate of funds case?
No. Trial Rule 60.5 requires a bench trial before a special judge, without a jury.
Can the local government appeal a mandate order?
Not through an ordinary appeal. The rule bars a motion to correct error or notice of appeal. Instead, the Indiana Supreme Court automatically reviews the decree unless the government body waives that review in writing within thirty days.
Are there limits on what a court can mandate funds for?
Yes. Rule 60.5(A) restricts mandated funds to amounts reasonably necessary for the court’s operation or court-related functions, and rules out extravagant, arbitrary, or personal expenses such as personal telephone bills, bar association dues, or disciplinary fees.
Does a mandate order cap what attorneys can be paid?
Yes, for mandate orders from courts other than the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. The rule bars directing attorney fees to be paid above the reasonable and customary hourly rate for attorneys in that county.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure (T.R. 60.5). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, under its inherent constitutional rulemaking power (reaffirmed by Ind. Code 34-8-1-1 and 34-8-2-1); originally enacted by the Indiana General Assembly in 1969. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: mandate of funds indianatrial rule 60.5 indianacourt funding dispute indianacourt orders county to pay indianajudicial mandate of funds indianaspecial judge mandate of funds indianacourt budget indiana civil procedure