Mathias, J.
The Lake County Board of Commissioners and Lake County Council (collectively, “Lake County”) appeal the Marion Superior Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the State of Indiana, the Office of Attorney General, the Lake County Probation Department, and Jan Parsons, in her official capacity as the Director of the felony Probation Department of the Superior Courts of the Lake County Criminal Division (collectively “the Appellees”). On appeal, Lake County argues that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the Appellees after concluding as a matter of law that the county is responsible for the costs of Lake County probation officers’ legal representation in defending against a federal lawsuit,
Under Indiana Code subsection 11-13-1-1(c), Lake County is responsible for paying the costs of its probation officers’ legal defense that are incurred in the performance of the officers’ duties. We therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.
….
Our General Assembly is tasked with determining which governmental entities are responsible for funding probation departments. And therefore, we turn our attention to the relevant statute: Indiana Code section 11-13-1-1. Under section 11-13-1-1, Lake County probation officers “serve at the pleasure of the” Lake Superior Court and “are directly responsible to and subject to the orders of the court.” Id. The statute further provides that probation officers’ salaries are paid “out of the county, city, or town treasury by the county auditor or city controller.” [Footnote omitted.] Id. Importantly, the statute also specifies that “[p]robation officers are entitled to their actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties.” [Footnote omitted.] Id. Thus, if Lake County probation officers’ legal expenses are “actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of [the officers’] duties,” then Lake County is responsible for those costs.
….
We initially observe that subsection 11-13-1-1(c) does not expressly state that counties or cities are responsible for paying the “actual expenses necessarily incurred.” However, the immediately preceding sentence requires that probation officers’ salaries are paid “out of the county, city, or town treasury by the county auditor or city controller.” I.C. § 11-13-1-1(c). It is thus reasonable to infer from the statute’s plain language that counties or cities are also responsible for paying probation officers’ “actual expenses necessarily incurred.” Moreover, Lake County has not cited, and we have not found, any statute that requires the State to pay any expenses associated with the operation of probation departments.8 For these reasons, it would be illogical to conclude that an entity other than the county auditor or city controller bears responsibility for paying probation officers’ expenses—interpreting the statute otherwise would be irrational and disharmonizing. We therefore may reasonably presume that the General Assembly intended that counties or cities are responsible for paying their probation officers’ actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties.
….
These two decisions reflect Indiana’s long standing policy requiring county governments to directly finance the operation of the state trial court system, including certain legal expenses. Our General Assembly has continued to require county governments to finance probation departments while allowing the judiciary to exercise control over the operation of those departments. These decisions are within our legislature’s control.
In line with our holdings in Mears and Delaware County, we conclude that “actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of [probation officers’] duties,” I.C. § 11-13-1-1(c), include the legal costs of defending probation officers who are sued for acts committed while serving in their official capacities. And in the federal litigation, Bostic sued the Lake County Probation Department, Jan Parsons, in her official capacity as the Director of the Felony Probation Department, and her probation officer, for acts that she alleges occurred while she was subject to the probation department’s supervision. Thus, the legal costs of defending the probation officers falls within the ambit of subsection 11-13-1-1(c) and are the responsibility of Lake County.
Conclusion
For all of these reasons, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Lake County is responsible for the legal costs of defending its probation officers in the federal litigation. The trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees is affirmed. [23]
Affirmed. Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.