ILNews

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.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT