Judge who declared 'ain't no sweat equity in this court' showed bias, ethics complaint alleges
Judge Charles D. Bridges of the Putnam County Superior Court in Indiana is accused of violating ethics rules banning bias or prejudice. (Image from Shutterstock)
An Indiana judge is accused of violating ethics rules banning bias or prejudice when he derided lawsuit claims by women who “make a habit” of claiming that they are entitled to partial proceeds from the sale of a home that they once inhabited with their boyfriends.
Judge Charles D. Bridges of the Putnam County Superior Court in Indiana made the comments during a pretrial conference in a suit filed by a woman against her former romantic partner with whom she lived for nearly two years, according to the ethics complaint filed Nov. 18 by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications.
The plaintiff alleged that she had contributed to the rehabilitation and maintenance of the home, and she was entitled to partial sale proceeds under theories of implied contract and unjust enrichment.
Bridges declared that he has seen other suits in which women try to recover home sale proceeds on a theory of “sweat equity,” but he doesn’t give it to them, the ethics complaint said.
“Ain’t no ‘sweat equity’ in this court,” he allegedly said.
During the litigation, Bridges “routinely” ruled on motions without giving the opposing party an opportunity to respond, the ethics complaint said. He also is accused of failing to rule on certain motions.
Bridges is accused of making the “injudicious” comments during a pretrial conference March 8, 2022. The ethics complaint includes these alleged statements by the judge:
• “If these folks aren’t married and this woman’s trying to get money out of him for a house that she lived in, and I can only—and I’m just—I have no idea, I don’t know the people, I don’t know what the facts of the case, I’m just saying my position is regardless of what everyone else’s position is in Indianapolis, that’s what the Court of Appeals are for, if she wasn’t—if they weren’t married and she lived there and had the benefit of living there, and now, she wants to claim what everybody calls ‘sweat equity,’ bulls- - -, ain’t no ‘sweat equity’ in this court.”
• “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 s- - -, and they were never married, and I don’t give it to them.”
• “I’m certainly not saying that your client is … , I don’t know her, I don’t know either one of these people, but I see women do this and it’s horses- - -, to coin a—to coin a phrase.”
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Bridges’ dismissal of the woman’s complaint and ordered a new judge to preside on remand.
The ethics complaint alleges violations of ethics rules banning manifestations of bias or prejudice, including bias based on gender. The complaint also alleges that Bridges’ rulings on motions violated ethics rules requiring judges to perform their duties competently, diligently and promptly.
The Indiana Supreme Court has final authority to determine whether misconduct happened.
Bridges is represented by attorney James H. Voyles. He did not immediately reply to an ABA Journal email seeking comment.
The Indiana Lawyer and Fox 59 are among the publications that covered the complaint.
