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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT