ILNews

Denial of recorded Vanderburgh ‘river camps’ lots affirmed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“River camps” along the Ohio River that date back to the 1930s may not be divided as lots of record based on the testimony of longtime residents, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, affirming a judgment of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.

Judge Terry Crone wrote for the panel that the plain meaning of the term “of record” requires some sort of documentation in the public record of a plat or deed. Vanderburgh’s zoning ordinances took effect in 1957, and longtime residents testified that configuration of the camps had remained essentially unchanged since then.

When an attorney attempted to prepare a deed to sell one of the river camps to a longtime tenant, she ultimately was informed that there was no way to record the deed to comply with zoning without “horrendous” penalties.

In Rollett Family Farms, LLC. v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville-Vanderburgh County, Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners, and Vanderburgh County Recorder, 82A01-1301-PL-43, Crone wrote that because Rollett was unable to provide recorded documentation of the camps’ boundaries, the appeals court could grant no relief.

“Rollett is not being prevented from using the property in the same way that it did prior to 1957; it is being prohibited from creating new nonconforming lots that were not formally or legally established prior to 1957,” Crone wrote.

“In sum, we conclude that a lot of record must be documented by a public record such as a recorded deed or plat. Because there is no evidence that the boundaries of the camps are set forth in any public record, the trial court correctly found that the exemption does not apply. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

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