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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT