Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Ritz
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 560
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- DNR and Ritz claim ownership to a tract along the former Whitewater Canal; DNR's deed envisions park system use for the public.
- Ritzs claim title via a 1971 deed tracing back to a 1954 deed; DNR sought to develop a hiking/biking trail and placed boundary markers.
- Ritzs removed markers and blocked DNR survey access; the 1991 suit sought ejectment, trespass, injunctions, and damages.
- Cause 1479 (1991) was dismissed for failure to prosecute in 1999, though later reinstated; show-cause orders issued but hearings unclear.
- Cause 269 (2009) was filed by DNR for trespass and quiet title; Ritzes moved to dismiss claim, arguing prior dismissal and limitations.
- In 2010 the trial court reinstated cause 1479; subsequently, the court dismissed cause 269 for lack of parallel court proceedings and statute of limitations, which DNR appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TR 41(E) dismissal was an abuse of discretion | DNR argues merits priority and minimal prejudice, with diligent pursuit since 2009. | Ritzes contend long delay and prejudice justify dismissal. | Dismissal reversed; trial court abused discretion and remanded. |
| Desirability of deciding the case on the merits given public interest | Public park trust and continued dedication favor merits review. | Public interest is not enough to override dismissal when delay occurs. | Public interest weighs heavily; merits should be decided. |
| Prejudice to Ritzes from delay | Delay caused minimal prejudice and even allowed Ritzes exclusive control. | Delay prejudices Ritzes by clouding title and hindering resolution. | Prejudice deemed minimal; not sufficient to sustain dismissal. |
| DNR's diligence and reasons for delay | DNR has acted diligently since 2009 and pursued reinstatement and survey promptly. | State delay in 1990s caused prejudice and improper stagnation. | DNR diligence recognized; delay not a basis to affirm dismissal. |
| Procedural propriety of appealing a TR 41(E) dismissal | Dismissal is final and appealable under precedent. | Appeal procedure was defective under TR 41(F) or 60(B) relief requirements. | Appeal proper; dismissal is final and appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Alick's Drugs, Inc., 863 N.E.2d 314 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (lengthy delay weighed with diligence and prejudice considerations)
- Baker Mach., Inc. v. Superior Canopy Corp., 883 N.E.2d 818 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (dismissal upheld where prolonged delay and little justification)
- Lee v. Pugh, 811 N.E.2d 881 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (factors governing abuse of discretion in dismissal for delay)
- Belcaster v. Miller, 785 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (time delay and prejudice balance in Rule 41(E) dismissals)
- Rueth Dev. Co. v. Muenich, 816 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (dismissals are disfavored; should be used sparingly)
- Steele v. Fowler, 41 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. 1942) (public dedication restricts loss of public land rights)
- Wolfe v. Town of Sullivan, 32 N.E. 1017 (Ind. 1893) (public rights in roads and highways cannot be lost by adverse possession)
- Schmidt v. Draper, 36 N.E. 709 (Ind. 1894) (statutes of limitations do not affect public rights in streets)