ILNews

COA reverses finding IDEM breached agreement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the finding that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management breached a settlement agreement because the trial court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether it committed a breach.

IDEM and NJK Farms entered into a settlement agreement in 2005 after a petition for judicial review was remanded to Marion Superior Court. The two parties were in a dispute about the denial of a permit application to operate a landfill in Fountain County. The agreement laid out the terms required for IDEM to grant the permit. While a permit application was pending before IDEM in 2008 and scheduled for a public comment period, the Indiana legislature passed a law concerning permits for solid waste landfills in counties without comprehensive zoning regulations.

Fountain County at that time didn't have a zoning ordinance, but a month later enacted regulations that included landfills. IDEM asked NJK to submit a new application because of the statute and the new Fountain County ordinances. NJK instead filed a motion with the trial court alleging IDEM breached the settlement agreement. IDEM then denied the permit and NJK filed a petition for review with the Office of Environmental Adjudication that it find the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. An administrative law judge stayed the petition pending ruling of the trial court. The trial court found it had exclusive jurisdiction and that IDEM breached the settlement.


On interlocutory appeal in Ind. Dept. of Environmental Management v. NJK Farms, Inc., No. 49A02-0902-CV-123, the Court of Appeals concluded Marion Superior Court didn't have jurisdiction over the matter, relying on Ind. Dept. of Environmental Management v. Raybestos Products Co., 897 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. 2008). The Indiana Supreme Court held that the exclusive means for review of IDEM's actions was by petition for review by the OEA and that money damages aren't authorized under the state Administrative Orders and Procedures Act.

In the instant case, IDEM is an agency subject to the AOPA, and IDEM's entry into the settlement agreement and actions following the agreement regarding NJK's permit application were agency actions, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. NJK argued that Raybestos is inapplicable and the settlement agreement was a contract and not an agency action because it arose out of a judicial proceeding instead of an administrative one. NJK argued if an agreement was entered to resolve issues during the administrative process, the AOPA would apply and damages couldn't be awarded. If an agreement was entered after a petition for judicial review, then AOPA wouldn't apply and the agency could be liable for damages.

That interpretation would lead to illogical results contrary to the purpose of the AOPA, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. "Clearly, it is better for such issues to be presented in the typical administrative review process prior to consideration by the trial court," he wrote. "The administrative review process allows IDEM to correct its own mistakes and allows those with the requisite expertise a first look at the issues." The judicial review of the OEA's determination in 2000 that NJK was not a real party in interest didn't confer jurisdiction on the Marion Superior Court to directly review all further actions of IDEM regarding NJK's permit application, wrote the judge. Money damages to NJK aren't authorized under the AOPA. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT