ILNews

Couple had to get permit before installing septic systems

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Rejecting a couple’s claim that a statute exempted them from having to get a permit before installing septic systems following the construction of their home in an unincorporated area of Allen County, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the health department on the matter.

The Fort Wayne-Allen County Department of Health learned Henry and Barb Wagler built their home – which is owned by their limited partnership – and installed two septic systems on the property without obtaining a construction permit. An attempt to resolve the matter administratively failed, so the health department filed a complaint against the couple and their LP for injunctive relief and damages. Both sides filed for summary judgment, with the Waglers claiming Indiana Code 36-7-8-3 exempts them from the permitting requirement.

The Waglers argued the “sanitation standards” mentioned in subsection (a) of the statute don’t apply to them because of subsection (d), which says the ordinance doesn’t apply when homes are built by individuals.

Septic systems are governed by Title 16 of Indiana Code and Title 410 of the Indiana Administrative Code, the judges pointed out, citing Washington County Health Department v. White, 878 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Just like the Whites in that case, the Waglers are bound to comply with health code regulations found in Title 410, the appellate court held in Henry Wagler, Barb Wagler and Henry and Barb Wagler, LP v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Department of Health, 02A03-1206-PL-269.

 

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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT