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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT