Girl Scouts of So. Illinois, et al. v. Vincennes Ind. Girls - 1/22/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  January 22, 2013 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 42S00-1210-PL-597. In 1965, the National Girl Scouts underwent reorganization, and as a result, the appellee, Vincennes Indiana Girls (“VIG”) was required to convey some ten acres of land known as Camp Wildwood to an Illinois scout council, the appellant, Girl Scouts of Southern Illinois (“GSSI”). The deed specified that ownership of the camp would revert to VIG if that camp was not used as a scouting facility for a period of 49 years. The deed also specified that if VIG’s corporate existence was terminated, the reversion right would automatically terminate; VIG was administratively dissolved for a time because an annual fee had not been paid to the Secretary of Sate. By 2009, GSSI had stopped using the land as a scout camp and had notified VIG that it intended to sell the camp. VIG filed a quiet title action, asserting that title to Camp Wildwood had reverted to VIG. Indiana Code section 32-30-3-14 provides that “a possibility of reverter … concerning real property is invalid after thirty (30) years from the date [it] is created….” The Knox Circuit Court granted summary judgment for VIG, deciding that Indiana Code section 32-30-3-14 was unconstitutional as applied, that VIG did not lose its right to the camp when it was administratively dissolved, and that VIG owns the fee simple title to Camp Wildwood. This is a direct appeal.

Back to Events
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