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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT