ILNews

Judges affirm dismissal of city’s counterclaim without prejudice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday that a dismissal based on the failure to provide an appraisal with an offer to purchase property for road work improvements was not an adjudication on the merits, allowing a city’s counterclaim for appropriation of the property to be dismissed without prejudice.

The city of Madison and Jefferson County entered into an interlocal agreement to improve Hutchinson Lane and needed about four acres of John Hutchinson’s land for temporary and permanent right-of-ways. The city was in charge of the road project.

The city offered Hutchinson around $25,000 for the property but didn’t include an appraisal. Hutchinson challenged the agreement between the city and county, after which Madison filed a counterclaim for appropriation of the property it needed for the project. The trial court held the agreement was valid and denied Hutchinson’s declaratory judgment action.

The trial court later dismissed the city’s counterclaim without prejudice and the city conceded that it didn’t comply with statute by not tendering an appraisal when it presented the acquisition offer.

In John A. Hutchinson v. The City of Madison, 39A01-1208-CC-394, the parties dispute whether the counterclaim should have been dismissed without prejudice. Hutchinson argued that the counterclaim should be dismissed with prejudice because a July 25, 2012, hearing was a “full-blown hearing” on the issue of whether the city complied with I.C. 32-24-1-3(c) and was an adjudication on the merits.

“We are not convinced that the failure to comply with Indiana Code Section 32-24-1-3(c) forever bars the state from acquiring that property so long as a property owner receives just compensation for the taking,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote. “This conclusion is supported by Indiana Code Section 32-24-1-8(d), which provides that, if a property owner objects to the proceedings and the objection is sustained, the complaint may be amended or the decision appealed. Although, as the parties acknowledge, the City cannot remedy the failure to provide an appraisal by amending the complaint, we believe this provision is indicative of the legislature’s intent to allow the City the opportunity to correct procedural errors and refile the complaint.”

The judges went on to find that given the city’s inherent authority to take private property and the statutory scheme for appropriating property, the dismissal based on the failure to provide an appraisal with an offer to purchase was not an adjudication on the merits.

They also held that the trial court properly determined that the interlocal agreement was valid.



 

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. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT