ILNews

Circuit Court rules in favor of utility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a Louisville utility in a dispute as to whether landowners could eject the utility from their property after violating portions of the lease. The appellate judges also declined to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Cedar Farm owns land along the Ohio River, which contains Indiana’s only antebellum plantation complex. The complex is on the National Register of Historic Places, and part of the land is considered a “classified forest” by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The property has various public uses.

Cedar Farm and Louisville Gas and Electric Co. have had leases for storing and extracting oil and natural gas from portions of the property since 1947. An amended lease in 1996 only allows termination at any time by LG&E, or if the utility fails to make timely payments to Cedar Farm. There is a specific provision that LG&E will pay for damages caused by its operations.

Cedar Farm filed a lawsuit claiming LG&E repeatedly breached the lease and its crews, or crews hired by it, caused damage to the property and even prevented the owners from access the land in December 2008. Cedar Farm wanted to evict LG&E, terminate the lease, and sought damages.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of LG&E on the ejectment claim, rejecting Cedar Farm’s arguments that lack of a clause regarding termination for the conduct committed by LG&E did not bar its ejectment action. Cedar Farms later dismissed its damages claim with prejudice so it could appeal the ejectment claim.

In Cedar Farm, Harrison County Inc. v. Louisville Gas and Electric Co., No. 10-2234, the 7th Circuit judges noted that under Indiana law, courts generally will enforce forfeiture or termination clauses in these kinds of leases before drilling begins, but after drilling begins courts are reluctant to enforce even explicit forfeiture provisions if damages can adequately compensate the lessor.

“But to survive summary judgment in this case and under this Lease, Cedar Farm needed to provide specific evidence in order to show a trier of fact the environmental impact of LG&E’s actions and why writing a check would be insufficient,” wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams. “An affidavit or other form of proof along these lines was necessary, and Cedar Farm did not submit, and does not argue it was prevented from submitting, such evidence to the district court.”

The federal appellate court also declined Cedar Farm’s request to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court – “whether Indiana would allow a lessor to terminate an oil-and-gas lease where recurring breaches of the lease threaten to inflict intangible, irreparable harm on the subject property.” Cedar Farm seeks to certify the question of whether the type of recurring damage alleged would suffice, which is not an appropriate question for certification, the judges held.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT