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."


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.