ILNews

Court rules on ADR sanctions, Open Door Law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Trial courts can sanction government entities through the state's Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, but officials aren't necessarily acting in bad faith if they don't immediately approve mediated agreements to comply with the Indiana Open Door Law, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

Issuing a decision today in Lake County Trust Co., et al. v. Advisory Plan Commission of Lake County, No. 37S03-0904-CV-192, the Supreme Court granted transfer and ruled on an issue last addressed by the intermediate appellate court in 1995 but that justices hadn't addressed before: whether a trial court could impose ADR rule sanctions against a governmental entity.

"Like other parties to litigation who may be involved in a mediation proceeding, governmental entities are equally obligated to comply with the applicable rules and thus should be equally subject to the sanctions authorized to encourage compliance," Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the unanimous court, noting the justices disapprove a contrary view expressed previously in State v. Carter, 658 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

The Lake County Advisory Plan Commission had denied a primary plat approval request for the Deer Ridge South Subdivision in an unincorporated part of the county, and the developers sought judicial review of that decision. The trial court ordered mediation and that led to a written settlement, but at a public meeting the plan commission voted to hold off on a decision for 30 days. Developers filed a motion to enforce the agreement, and the plan commission then voted to reject it. That resulted in the trial court specifically ordering the plan commission to approve the plan and issue any necessary permits; officials complied. But the trial court later conducted a hearing and determined that the plan commission had acted in bad faith in failing to approve a settlement reached by its attorneys with full settlement authority, and ordered that mediation costs be paid to the developers. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the plan commission was immune from any sanctions under the ADR rules, and that the commission didn't act in bad faith in not approving the plat promptly.

In its decision today, justices examined the 1995 ruling in Carter and compared it to other caselaw looking at how government entities are held liable for damages and how Indiana's mediation rules are designed to be a part of the court-sanctioned process applying to civil and domestic situations. It also determined that no exemption exists for the government entities.

The court also determined that the Indiana Open Door Law must be applied to any mediation agreement and that pre-mediation public meetings don't satisfy that statutory requirement as the developers insisted in this case.

"While we generally favor the amicable settlement of disputes and encourage the use of mediation to facilitate such agreements, these processes cannot substitute for legislatively mandated official and public assent to the resulting settlement agreements," Justice Dickson wrote. " Resort to mediation can be extremely beneficial to all parties, but, as observed by the Court of Appeals, it is wise practice 'to include language in a settlement agreement that the agreement is contingent upon compliance with the Open Door Law and that it must be approved at an open meeting.'"

Justices vacated the ruling from Jasper Circuit Judge John D. Potter, which had ordered the plan commission to reimburse a developer $1,578 in mediation costs.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT