ILNews

Judges disagree on whether landowners are 'aggrieved'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Jurists on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed on an issue of first impression about what an “aggrieved” party is when it comes to filing a mandate or injunction against a water conservancy district under state statute.

In a 2-1 ruling today in Phyllis and Michael Klosinski v. Cordry Sweetwater Conservancy District, No. 07A01-1008-PL-429, the court majority affirmed and reversed in part a decision from Brown Circuit Judge Judith Stewart involving the construction of sanitary sewer facilities and alleged failure to keep a pair of local lakes sediment-free.

The Klosinskis have owned property in the conservancy district since 1979, and about three years ago they asked for court action against the governing board because the district was exceeding its statutory authority by enacting rules on issues including building codes, road use, the creation of a police force, and carrying firearms. The trial court denied most injunction requests but did issue a general injunction prohibiting the district from establishing or enforcing rules that don’t further its statutory purposes.

Both sides filed appeals, with the Klosinskis arguing the lower court erred by denying their injunction petition while the district argued the property owners didn’t have standing to sue in the first place because they aren’t “aggrieved” parties.

Indiana Code Section 14-33-5-24 governs conservancy districts and proves that “an interested person adversely affected by an action committed or omitted by the board in violation of this chapter may petition the court having jurisdiction over the district to enjoin or mandate the board.”

No state cases have specifically addressed the meaning of “an interested person adversely affected,” though the Indiana Supreme Court in 2004 did address a similar issue in the context of the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act using a definition from Black’s Law Dictionary that said the concept of aggrieved is a “personalized harm.”

In this case, Judges Michael Barnes and Nancy Vaidik determined that the Klosinskis had no specific harm and only demonstrated a general concern as taxpayers to bring standing – they weren’t denied building permits or fined or sued by the district, for example.

“General standing principles are inapplicable here,” the majority wrote. “To be ‘adversely affected,’ the Klosinskis must have more than a generalized concern. They must identify a specific harm to pecuniary, property, or personal interest. Simply arguing that they are taxpayers is insufficient.”

The two-judge majority pointed to how this standing issue created problems with the trial court order in this case, which partially grants and denies various parts of what the property owners were asking. That leaves the district little guidance on what actions are outside its statutory purposes, they wrote.

But Judge John Baker dissented on the “aggrieved party” aspect of the case, finding that the Klosinskis did have standing because they lived in the district and would be impacted by these rules and any assessments or fees that might result from these actions. Applying the rationale from a case involving the AOPA isn’t the way to resolve this dispute where the record established these property owners are “aggrieved,” he wrote.

“The statute at issue here is the Conservancy Act, Indiana Code section 14-33-1-1 et seq., and the Klosinskis asserted that the District was violating the statute by exceeding its authority in several areas,” Judge Baker wrote. “As noted above, the Klosinskis were directly affected by the District’s rules and regulations and they pay the fees for the District’s services. The aim of the Klosinskis was to see an order compelling the District to follow the law and refrain from acting beyond its authority.”
 

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. 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.

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

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT