ILNews

Court rules on 2 water-related cases

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals decided two environmental cases today involving issues pertaining to lake levels and the rights lakefront property owners enjoy.

In Center Townhouse Corp., et al. v. City of Mishawaka, No. 71A04-0612-CV-707, the court tackled an issue it hasn't specifically dealt with before and decided not to expand Indiana's riparian rights, or those privileges extended to waterfront property owners, to include the right of unobstructed view of the water.

A group of eight townhome owners brought an inverse condemnation action against the city and local parks board after it constructed a pedestrian bridge over the St. Joseph River as part of a riverwalk project. The trial court had determined the city took property interests belonging to the community and owners without just compensation, but a jury returned a no-damage verdict. Owners appealed for damages and the city cross-appealed, arguing that a taking of rights had not even occurred. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's rulings.

The appellate court analyzed state statute but determined the law isn't completely clear about what's entailed in riparian rights as far as unobstructed views. Judges relied on caselaw from Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, and Georgia that has addressed this issue and adopted those as legally protected rights.

"Landowners urge us to follow suit and hold that, in Indiana, riparian rights include the right to an unobstructed view of the water creating those riparian rights such that a loss of view is compensable in an inverse condemnation action," Judge James Kirsch wrote. "After careful consideration, we are unwilling to do so. Deciding the scope of a landowner's view (how high, how far, from what vantage point, etc.), and, if obstructed in some way for some reason, determining how much obstruction is too much, is inappropriate, if not impossible for this court."

Rather, the court pointed out that this is a policy decision best left to legislators who can work with state resource officials and local planning officials to make the best decisions.

"Those authorities, not an appellate court, should decide on proper views over and across neighboring properties and waterways, as they are in the best position to prescribe reasonable restrictions in order to protect people who have paid large sums of money in order to border Indiana's lakes, rivers, and streams," Judge Kirsch wrote.

A second decision today in Larry Bowyer d/b/a Lakes Limited Liability Corp. v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, No. 09A02-0612-CV-1116, involves the water level of Lake Cicott in Cass County. The DNR filed a complaint against Bowyer, who'd been dumping construction debris into the public lake and altering its shoreline and water level without a permit. The trial court determined the lake was public, not a private lake as the parties had argued, and was subject to the DNR's regulation of its water level.

The appellate court affirms that decision, while indicating the state statute doesn't clearly map the process for determining what a lake level should be. The court determined Bowyer's contentions are without merit.
ADVERTISEMENT

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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT