ILNews

COA: Suit against sewer district isn’t a public lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Spencer Circuit Court erred in finding a lawsuit filed by property owners challenging the requirement they connect to a new sewer system is a public lawsuit and the property owners must pay $9 million in bond to proceed with the suit, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

In Steven Buse, et al. v. Trustees of the Luce Township Regional Sewer District, No. 74A05-1009-PL-590, Steven Buse and other property owners brought an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s holding that four counts of the owners’ complaint constitute a public lawsuit against Luce Township Regional Sewer District under Indiana Code 34-6-2-124. The property owners filed the suit, claiming the sewer district was installing a new sewer near their properties and required the property owners to tie into the line at their own expense. The property owners all had functioning septic tank soil absorption systems. The property owners also alleged that they would have to pay more than the homeowners who did grant the sewer system easements over their property.

The trial court relied on I.C. 34-6-2-124 to find the lawsuit was a public lawsuit and ordered the property owners post a $9 million in bond within 10 days of the order.

But the trial court didn’t determine whether the property owners were pursuing the lawsuit as citizens or as taxpayers. This is an important distinction that needs to be made by the court, as spelled out by the Indiana Supreme Court in Dible v. City of Lafayette, 713 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. 1999). The justices held that an action by an individual landowner seeking to protect his or her private interest in property doesn’t constitute the basis for a public lawsuit.

The plain language of the complaint shows that the property owners didn’t bring the suit in their capacity as taxpayers, wrote Judge Edward Najam, so the trial court’s findings don’t support its conclusions that the complaint is a public lawsuit.

“We also hold that the trial court’s order that the Property Owners’ claims are within the ambit of the public lawsuit statute misapplies the statute,” he wrote. “… the trial court focused only on the language of the statute. But, as summarized in Dible, the controlling factor is whether the Property Owners seek to protect public or private interests.”

The appellate judges also rejected the sewer district’s claim that the private interests of the property owners are so commingled with the public interests that the public lawsuit aspect of the counts should trump the private interests. The convergence of private interests with public interests isn’t enough in itself to convert an action that doesn’t otherwise qualify into a public lawsuit, wrote Judge Najam.

The COA reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the claims, noting that nothing in the opinion shall be taken as comment on the merit of those claims.

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT