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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT