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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT