Friday, October 10, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 12 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Susan A. Snyder v. Town of Yorktown, Delaware County Surveyor, Delaware County Drainage Board, Randall Miller & Associates, Inc., and Watson Excavating, Inc. , a 16-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Susan A. Snyder appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Town of Yorktown, Delaware County Surveyor, and Delaware County Drainage Board (collectively “the Defendants”). The sole dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred when it granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Snyder’s claims for trespass and inverse condemnation. Concluding that the allegations in the complaint fail to establish any set of circumstances under which Snyder would be entitled to relief for trespass, but that her complaint sufficiently states a claim for inverse condemnation, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *NFP civil opinions today (3):
[Trespass] It is apparent that the facts alleged in the complaint are incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances, and therefore the trial court properly granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Snyder’s trespass claim.
[Inverse Condemnation] * * * The process of inverse condemnation allows individuals to be compensated for the loss of property interests taken for public purposes if the government fails to initiate eminent domain proceedings. Green River Motel Mgmt. of Dale, LLC v. State, 957 N.E.2d 640, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (2012). “If the government takes property but fails to initiate proceedings, Section 32-24-1-16 explicitly allows an owner of property acquired for public use to bring a suit for inverse condemnation to recover money damages.” Murray, 925 N.E.2d at 731. * * *
Determining that it could not “adjudicate the rights to a piece of real estate without joining all interested parties,” the court concluded that dismissal of Snyder’s inverse condemnation claim was appropriate.
Although we acknowledge the logic of the trial court’s reasoning, we conclude that such reasoning has been misapplied here. Significantly, the purpose of joining interested parties in a condemnation proceeding is to protect the rights of those parties, not to shield defendants from potential liability. * * * [O]our supreme court has specifically said that the failure to name all interested parties is not a jurisdictional defect in condemnation actions. * * *
Snyder’s procedural failure to name her mortgagee as a defendant in her complaint is not proper grounds for dismissal of her inverse condemnation claim, and the trial court erred in granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on that basis.
NFP criminal opinions today (9):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 10, 2014 01:23 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions