ILNews

Damage of personal property not unconstitutional taking

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a sanitary district in a suit against it alleging an unconstitutional taking of homeowners’ personal property after sewage backed up into their homes. The judges relied on a case from Nevada to support their decision.

Homeowners Katherine Farley and James Paul, along with other property owners, sued the Hammond Sanitary District after heavy rains caused sewage to back up in their basements. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the sanitary district on the homeowners’ tort claims. At issue in the appeal are only Farley and Paul’s tort claims and their claims for unconstitutional taking of personal property.

The two alleged in Katherine Farley and James Paul v. Hammond Sanitary District, No. 45A05-1008-CT-481, that the intrusion of the sewage into their homes interfered with their personal property without just compensation, violating Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution – the Takings Clause. No Indiana court has addressed this issue on point because previous caselaw only dealt with real property, not personal property. The appellate judges relied on ASAP Storage Inc. v. City of Sparks, 123 Nev. 639, 173 P.3d 734 (2007), to affirm summary judgment for the Hammond Sanitary District on this claim.

In Sparks, property owners were barred from their homes for 48 hours by city officials due to a flood. Their personal property was damaged, and they sued under a similar clause under the Nevada Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that a brief interference with property rights didn’t rise to the level of compensable taking. The Indiana judges found in the instant case that the sewage backup only lasted for a short period of time – six to 12 hours in Paul’s case, and four days in Farley’s case, as she was out of town when it occurred but she cleaned up the basement as soon as she returned. Since it was brief in nature, it didn’t rise to the level of a compensable taking under the Takings Clause despite the harm to the personal property.

The COA split over the striking in part of Farley and Paul’s expert witness’ affidavit. The trial court struck two portions of engineer Michael Williams’ affidavit – that the sanitary district failed to properly clean its sewers, which led to accumulated obstructions that reduced carrying capacity and caused the backups; and that the district didn’t properly clean its sewers and keep them free of debris, which reduced capacity and caused the backups.

The judges all agreed that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in striking the first statement because Williams’ legal conclusion was not evidence. But the majority reversed striking the second disputed portion, finding that statement was based on his experience, education and review of evidence. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented, believing the trial court properly struck this portion. She would affirm summary judgment for the district on this point.

The judges also found there to be a dispute of fact as to whether inadequate maintenance played a part in the sewer backups, and the sanitary district failed to establish its immunity. They reversed summary judgment on the issue of governmental immunity and negligence, and remanded for further proceedings.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT