ILNews

COA decides eminent domain case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In considering a common arrangement between a utility company and property developer, the Indiana Court of Appeals has given a green light for that utility to exercise eminent domain when a developer is financing a sewer line extension to a proposed housing development.

Attorneys disagree about the impact and significance of today's ruling in Wymberley Sanitary Works v. Earl L. Batliner, Jr., et al., No. 22A01-0802-CV-55, a unanimous decision in favor of the public utility doing business as Aqua Indiana. Those on the prevailing side say it reaffirms state and national caselaw and covers what is already practiced, while those on the other side describe this as a case of first impression that effectively eliminates landowner rights in condemnation actions.

That importance could ultimately be decided by the Indiana Supreme Court if appellate attorneys decide to file a transfer petition and should the justices decide to weigh in on this Floyd Circuit case that goes back to a proposed development about five years ago.

A developer in 2004 had approached Wymberley about the utility extending sewer service to its proposed subdivision, and the utility obtained regulatory permission the following year and entered into an agreement with the developer. In the meantime, the developer began negotiating with landowners for the needed right-of-way easements, but those discussions ultimately failed and four eminent domain complaints were filed against the landowners.

In December 2007, a special judge dismissed the public utility's eminent domain complaints by finding that Wymberley didn't adequately present a need for the eminent domain or the needed land, that it acted in bad faith in trying to acquire the easements, and that it wouldn't be for public use. But the Court of Appeals reversed most of the trial court conclusions, holding that the judge erred in finding that Wymberley made improper offers or acted in bad faith, that the proposed takings weren't for public use, and that there wasn't a current need for the takings.

Relying on the Supreme Court of the United States case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Indiana panel found that Wymberley's taking would not be transferring the property to a private entity but to a regulated public utility providing public service - not as far as the SCOTUS ruling had allowed.

"The court's decision is clearly in the mainstream, not on the outer edges of eminent domain authority, and proves the common practice by which developers pay for utility service connections," said Baker & Daniels attorney Jon Laramore, who represents Wymberley. "They've clearly said that sewer service is a traditional public purpose, even if there's some additional private benefit to the developer."

But Bose McKinney & Evans attorney Bryan Babb, who represents the landowners in this case, said this ruling is one of first impression on various fronts and means that property owners have no protection in condemnation actions.

"If ever we were going to provide some measure of protection, then it was this case," Babb said. "There are no protections for landowners if this ruling stands. The Supreme Court needs to decide on this, if it believes there's going to be limits on what condemning authorities can do. This is the time, because after this there are no limits."

Several groups are amicus parties in this case: Indiana Energy Association, Indiana Association of Sewer Cos., Indiana Agricultural Law Foundation, and the Institute for Justice.

Attorneys have 30 days to file a transfer petition with the Indiana Supreme Court. If that isn't done, then this ruling would be certified and classified as the final judgment on this case. Babb said no decision has been made on that move and he hadn't discussed this ruling with his clients yet. He said he will likely advise them to consider filing that petition.

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT