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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT