ILNews

Man's suit filed after all statutes of limitations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed a Logansport resident has standing to sue his city over the operation and management of a city park, but that his suit is barred by statutes of limitations.

In State of Indiana on the relation of Michael Berkshire v. City of Logansport, Ind., et al., No. 09A02-0911-CV-1139, resident Michael Berkshire, upset that alcohol was being sold in Dykeman Park, filed a verified complaint for writ of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief in April 2009 against the city and its Parks & Recreation Board. Berkshire claimed the park wasn't being maintained and operated as was directed by the will of Cass County Circuit Judge David D. Dykeman and the resolution passed by the city in 1915 adopting Judge Dykeman's request.

Judge Dykeman had left his farm to the city to be used as a public park. He requested the city spend $1,500 a year to maintain it and that it be controlled by three park commissioners appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Cass County, the Cass Circuit Court, and the common council.

Those three appointments were never made and eventually the oversight of the park was maintained by the Board of the Department of Parks and Recreation, which was created in 1979 and has five members. The city did maintain the park and spend at least $1,500 on it throughout the years.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Berkshire, finding he did have standing to sue, but also ruled that the statute of limitations for him to bring the suit had expired.

Berkshire argued on appeal that Logansport's response to his summary judgment motion didn't comply with the designation of evidence requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 56(C). The appellate court relied on the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Reiswerg v. Statom, No.49S02-0906-CV-280, in which the high court determined that defendants didn't waive a statute of limitations defense when they failed to assert it in a response to the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Logansport did assert its defense in its answer to the complaint and in the motion to dismiss, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed that Berkshire had standing to bring his suit - he as well as other Logansport residents have a public right in the enjoyment of the park. But, Berkshire didn't bring his suit in time to comply with any of the possible statutes of limitations. It could be argued that the suit had to have been brought within 20 years of 1917 or within 20 years of when the Parks and Recreation Board was created in 1979.

The appellate court noted that the city had complied with two out of the three requests laid out in Judge Dykeman's will - the land was designated as Dykeman Park and the city has spent more than $1,500 a year on improvements, wrote the chief judge.

"Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Logansport's operation of Dykeman Park for over ninety years has amounted to substantial compliance with the agreement and the provisions of the Will," he wrote. "Even more compelling, it is apparent that Logansport has fulfilled Judge Dykeman's intent as a result of its agreement to establish and operate the park. As a result, the trial court properly granted Logansport's motion to dismiss Berkshire's action."

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT