Barnette v. US Architects, LLP
15 N.E.3d 1
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Albert and Julie Bowen built an accessory structure in Carmel after obtaining a building permit and certificate of occupancy from the Department of Community Services (DCS); neighbors Barnette complained about the building's height.
- DCS later concluded the building violated the zoning ordinance height limit (accessory buildings capped at 18 feet), advised the Bowens to apply for a variance, and threatened to withdraw the certificate of occupancy; Bowens sought a variance (denied by the BZA) but did not appeal DCS’s initial or subsequent determinations.
- Plaintiffs (the Bowens and U.S. Architects) then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking an interpretation of the ordinance and a declaration that the building complied; the City counterclaimed for injunction and civil penalties; Barnettes intervened and joined the City’s motions.
- Trial court found DCS had violated the Bowens’ due process and estopped DCS from revoking the certificate, granted declaratory relief to the Bowens, and held U.S. Architects lacked standing; it ordered reissuance of the certificate or just compensation.
- On appeal, the court addressed mootness, whether the Bowens failed to exhaust administrative remedies (jurisdictional issue), estoppel and due process defenses, and U.S. Architects’ standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / appellability | Appeal is moot because City did not appeal; private intervenor (Barnettes) cannot enforce ordinance for the City | Intervention parties remain parties on appeal and may challenge adverse rulings | Not moot: intervenor parties of record can appeal; court may grant relief to any party of record |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies / subject-matter jurisdiction | Plaintiffs filed declaratory action instead of pursuing administrative appeals; argued administrative path inadequate | City: Bowens failed to exhaust statutorily available appeals to BZA/courts, depriving trial court of jurisdiction | Bowens failed to exhaust; dismissal required. Trial court erred in proceeding on merits against Bowens |
| Estoppel / due process | Plaintiffs argued DCS misled them by issuing permit/CO and later revoking, so DCS is estopped and due process was violated | City: estoppel inapplicable against government where facts equally known/accessible to parties; Bowens had administrative remedies providing process | Estoppel rejected (facts equally accessible; owners charged with ordinance knowledge). Due process claim fails because exhaustion would have provided process |
| Standing of U.S. Architects | U.S. Architects sought declaratory relief and future guidance; argued potential liability and need to know ordinance interpretation | City: any injury to Architect is derivative of Bowens; cannot seek advisory opinion for prospective guidance | Affirmed: U.S. Architects lacks standing; claim derivative and seeks advisory opinion; dismissal ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoosier Outdoor Adver. Corp. v. RBL Mgmt., Inc., 844 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (party of record in trial court remains a party on appeal and may pursue appeal)
- Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 2000) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies can deprive trial court of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utils., Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641 (Ind. 1995) (policy reasons supporting exhaustion doctrine and judicial deference to administrative process)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1975) (administrative exhaustion rationale and benefits of agency expertise)
- Liberty Landowners Ass’n v. Porter Cnty. Comm’rs, 913 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (plaintiff may not seek advisory opinion for future regulatory guidance)
- Biddle v. BAA Indianapolis, LLC, 860 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. 2007) (estoppel generally disfavored against government; rationale for limiting government estoppel)