Court: Association has no standing to sue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a landowners association lacked standing to sue over the rezoning of property despite the argument that its claim survives under the "public standing doctrine."

In Liberty Landowners Association Inc. v. Porter County Commissioners and Northwest Indiana Health System, LLC, No. 64A03-0905-CV-213, Liberty Landowners Association appealed the trial court's dismissal of its complaint for declaratory judgment filed against the Porter County Commissioners regarding the rezoning of property to allow for construction of a hospital.

Liberty is a voluntary nonprofit community association that doesn't own any property or pay taxes. It argued at the rezoning hearing that conversion of the site from residential to institutional would violate the adjacent use specifications of the Porter County Unified Development Ordinances. The commissioners agreed the hospital would bring more taxes and jobs to the area, and adopted an ordinance rezoning the area.

Liberty claimed in its suit the rezoning was arbitrary and capricious because the commissioners didn't consider the impact of an institutional zone next to residential zones, and that one commissioner's vote was invalid due to a conflict of interest.

The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing since Liberty doesn't own real estate within the requisite proximity to the rezoned land.

The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, noting that it's well settled that standing to challenge a zoning ordinance requires a property right or some other personal right and pecuniary injury not common to the community as a whole. Precedent has held that landowners associations lack standing to challenge zoning decisions, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

But Liberty contended that they could sue under the "public standing doctrine." The association waived this argument because it didn't bring it up in the trial court, the appellate court ruled. However, even if the issue hadn't been waived, Liberty's argument would still fail. The public standing doctrine is limited to extreme circumstances and even when that claim is asserted, the party must still have some property right or some other personal right and a pecuniary interest, wrote the chief judge citing State ex rel. Cittadine v. Indiana Dept. of Transportation, 790 N.E.2d 978, 983 (Ind. 2003), and City of Hammond v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 152 Ind. App. 480, 490, 284 N.E.2d 119, 126 (1972).

In a final footnote, the appellate court also decided the trial court didn't err in failing to address Liberty's purported constitutional challenges because Liberty confined its challenge at the trial level to the propriety of the rezoning. Thus, it waived those claims on appeal.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.