Court: DNR case can proceed despite 11-year delay

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has looked past a trial rule calling for diligent prosecution of claims, finding that a state Department of Natural Resources land ownership dispute can proceed despite an 11-year delay in prosecuting because it’s of great public importance and should be decided on the merits.

A 20-page decision comes Thursday in the case of Indiana DNR v. Ronald W. and Sandra J. Ritz, No. 24A01-1009-PL-442, a Franklin Circuit case involving a tract of land along the former Whitewater Canal that the state sought to use for a hiking and biking trail.

Both sides claimed ownership, with the DNR citing a title through a quit claim deed in 1946 from the Whitewater Canal Association of Indiana while the husband and wife had a title from 1971 that they’d obtained from previous property owner deeds. When the DNR put markers on the property in 1991 for the proposed development, Ronald and Sandra Ritz, who operated a canoe business on adjacent land, removed them and blocked the state employees from accessing the property. That led to a court complaint in 1991 by the DNR.

But the case docket doesn’t clearly show what happened with that case, except for entries that it was dismissed more than once according to Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) requiring diligent prosecution. But the court didn’t dismiss it and instead kept it alive. Records aren’t completely clear on whether the court held hearings on dismissal, as required by the trial rule, but the claim was ultimately dismissed in 1999 because of Rule 41(E).

In the background of all that happening, the state agency had abandoned the original plans to develop the Whitewater Canal Trail in 1996, but asked the Indiana Attorney General’s Office to continue pursuing that original action against the Ritzes. The state resurrected the Whitewater Canal Project in 2004, but the state agency wasn’t aware of the initial action against the Ritzes. It wasn’t until 2009 that the state began pursuing it again with a second action – after the 10-year statutory period when the AG’s office destroys records.

The Ritzes challenged the second action on the grounds that the 1991 complaint had been dismissed with prejudice and that the statute of limitations had since expired regarding the second action. The DNR filed a motion to reinstate the original action, contending that a hearing wasn't held and so dismissal was improper. The trial court reinstated the orignal action.

Now, both parties are arguing over whether the case should be decided on the merits or whether the DNR lost the right to prosecute the case because of its inaction according to Rule 41(E). The trial court dismissed both actions against the Ritzes, but the Court of Appeals - combining both actions on appeal -  has reversed that ruling and ordered it be kept alive.

The appellate panel opted to consider the merits of the case, finding that Ritzes suffered minimal prejudice because of the delay and that the significant impact of the land ownership question warranted review. The appellate court found no evidence that the DNR is “manipulating the judicial system” as the Ritzes allege, and the appellate judges pointed out that many trial courts routinely issue show cause orders simply when the docket shows no activity.

“Although it is unclear from the record what caused the Attorney General’s Office to fail to pursue the action in the 1990s, there is no evidence that the State was purposely and deliberately dilatory or unwilling to resolve the dispute,” the appellate panel wrote.

Judge Cale Bradford wrote a separate concurring opinion that emphasized this decision is not to be seen as providing the state immunity in following Trial Rule 41(E). Rather, the type of “unusual circumstances” in this case dictate that the state be allowed to neglect a case for as long as it did here without dismissal. The state is still required in other contexts, such as eminent domain, to avoid unnecessary delays and expedite matters.

“Nobody has greater respect for property rights than I do, and I believe that questions involving those rights should be fully litigated before they are granted or taken away,” he wrote. “Although I express no opinion on the strength of either side’s claim to the land at issue, I much prefer that questions affecting the interests of all Hoosiers be decided on the merits.”


  • BS
    This is nothing but government corruption and poppycock. Leave the Ritzes alone! 11 year delay, what kind of crap is the state try to pull off? If the state didn 't do anything for 11 years, they obviously didn't care. What is the purpose of a statute of limitations if the courts can just say, oh well the statute doesn't apply to this case. In other words it applies when the court says it does and doesn't apply when the court says it doesn't. Now the courts decide the law and the facts, but that is OK because, article 1 section 19 of the Indiana constitution states that they can. So be it!

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?