ILNews

Company loses inverse condemnation claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 17-month period beginning when a Terre Haute Board of Zoning Appeals ordered a company seeking a special exception to provide public water to surrounding homes and ending when that condition was overturned by a judge did not constitute inverse condemnation, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

In Midwest Minerals, Inc. v. Fred L. Wilson, Rick Jenkins, Joseph Kenworthy, Michael Tewell, and James Clayton, et al., 84A04-1205-MI-258, Midwest Minerals Inc. argued that the trial court erred when it applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to support a conclusion of law, and it claimed that a regulatory taking occurred with respect to real property owned by the company. Midwest Minerals’ efforts to build a molecular gas processing unit on property zoned for heavy industrial use in West Terre Haute has been litigated several times since 2002.

In 2005, Midwest sought the special exception that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Area Plan Commission of Vigo County said it needed to build the plant, which the BZA granted under certain conditions in February 2006. At issue in this appeal is the public water condition, requiring Midwest to provide public water to any residential use within ½ mile of any wells associated with coal mine methane processing.

Seventeen months later, a judge overturned that decision, removing the public water condition. The BZA didn’t appeal that decision and Midwest has been free to begin construction on the processing unit, but has not. Instead, it sued the BZA and the Board of Commissioners of Vigo County, alleging the public water condition constituted a taking without compensation under Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution and sought damages.

The trial court ruled in favor of the boards, finding the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied with respect to an issue determined in a prior declaratory judgment action – whether Midwest proved the boards prevented Midwest’s “complete” use of a mineral resource outside of an urban area. The judge also found there was no inverse condemnation.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, pointing out that while the question of whether a taking occurred wasn’t raised in the previous declaratory judgment action, whether the boards prevented the complete use of the gas found on the property had been fully litigated and determined, so it cannot be relitigated here.

Regarding the inverse condemnation claim, the boards’ actions did not constitute a taking. During those 17 months, evidence showed that Midwest could have removed the gas from the land by pumping it into trucks and taking it to another area to purify, Judge Edward Najam pointed out. In addition, Midwest didn’t purchase the property with the intent of harvesting and processing the gas, but had it for years before entering into a contract with another company to explore and develop the gas interests in the land.

Finally, Midwest and the company it contracted with have yet to start construction on the processing unit, even though it’s been more than five years since the court struck down the public water condition.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT