ILNews

COA affirms order Amish connect to sewer system

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court’s decision to deny setting aside agreements several members of the Old Order Amish near Loogootee made to connect to a sewer system and the order that a couple hook up to the system.

West Boggs, a not-for-profit utility, sent notices to Terry and Laura Wagler, Larry and Jennifer Wagler, Norman Wagler, and Janet and Nathan Wagler ordering them to connect to the sewer system by a specific deadline pursuant to Indiana Code 8-1-2-125. The Waglers all hired the same attorney, Marilyn A. Hartman, who worked with Terry and Laura Wagler, Norman Wagler, and Larry and Jennifer Wagler to enter into agreements with the utility to hook up to the system.

But they never hooked up to the system, so West Boggs filed verified motions for rule to show cause. Around this time, Hartman stopped representing the Waglers and Dale W. Arnett became their attorney. The Waglers sought to have the agreements set aside under Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) and claimed that their religious beliefs should prevent them from having to hook up to the system. Larry Wagler testified that he felt like he “had a gun to (his) head” to enter into the agreement.

The trial court denied their motions and also ordered Janet and Nathan Wagler to connect to the system. The Waglers do not belong to the Old Order Amish, according to court records.

The Waglers and West Boggs appealed; West Boggs sought trial attorney fees, which were denied, and appellate attorney fees.

In Terry and Laura Wagler, Larry and Jennifer Wagler, Norman Wagler, and Janet and Nathan Wagler v. West Boggs Sewer District Inc., 14A01-1109-PL-427, the Court of Appeals found many of the Waglers’ arguments weren’t cogent and that they didn’t prove that certain contract doctrines that they argued were applicable actually applied. The Waglers were aware of the requirements of the agreed judgments when they signed them, and the judgments were negotiated by their attorney, Judge Elaine Brown wrote.

Janet and Nathan Wagler argued that I.C. 8-1-2-125(d) allowed them the option to connect, but the judges found that statute only gives the utility the discretion as to whether to require someone to connect. Upon that request, the property owner is required to comply with the utility’s directive, as long as certain requirements are met, which were in this case.

Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees and the request for appellate attorney fees by West Boggs, finding the Waglers did not litigate or appeal in bad faith.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT