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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT