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. 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