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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT