ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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