John C. & Maureen G. Osborne v. Town of Long Beach, Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 223
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Three Long Beach lakefront homeowners obtained BZA variances to build seawalls, then received building permits; construction began.
- The Long Beach Community Alliance (LBCA) and James Neulieb filed administrative appeals of the building permits to the BZA; stop-work orders issued pursuant to the appeals halted construction.
- Homeowners and their contractor (Plaintiff Owners) sued in trial court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block the BZA appeals and lift stop-work orders; complaint included 12 counts targeting BZA actions, standing, conflicts, and stop-work orders.
- Defendants (Town, LBCA, Neulieb) moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the complaint was a SLAPP suit; the trial court denied those motions (April orders) and later denied Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive and declaratory relief (July 5 Order).
- The appellate court (consolidated appeals) held it had jurisdiction to hear the cross-appeals and reversed the trial court’s April 8 Order, concluding Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over defendants’ cross-appeals of April dismissal orders | July 5 Order was interlocutory; cross-appeal of April orders is improper | July 5 Order disposed of all claims and is final, so defendants may appeal April orders | Court held July 5 Order was final under App. R. 2(H) and exercised jurisdiction over cross-appeals |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ complaint (exhaustion) | Plaintiffs argued BZA had already granted a variance (Dec. 8) so administrative remedies were exhausted or were futile; Twin Eagle exception (agency lacked jurisdiction) applies | Defendants argued Plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies (BZA appeals, 1600-series review) and thus trial court lacked jurisdiction | Court held Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and reversed the denial of motions to dismiss (trial court lacked jurisdiction) |
| Applicability of exceptions to exhaustion (jurisdictional challenge, futility, bias) | Plaintiffs claimed jurisdictional exception (Twin Eagle), futility, and alleged BZA bias/conflicts justified bypassing administrative process | Defendants said exceptions didn’t apply; administrative process should proceed and correct issues | Court distinguished Twin Eagle (pure statutory construction) and rejected futility/bias excuses absent record development; exceptions did not excuse exhaustion |
| Anti-SLAPP motions (Indiana Anti-SLAPP statute) | Plaintiffs argued their suit was not an improper SLAPP and sought injunctive relief | Defendants (LBCA/Neulieb) moved to dismiss under Anti-SLAPP; trial court denied and defendants appealed | Appellate court did not decide Anti-SLAPP merits because it reversed for lack of jurisdiction on exhaustion grounds (did not reach those issues) |
Key Cases Cited
- Twin Eagle LLC v. Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003) (exception to exhaustion where question is purely agency jurisdiction/statutory construction)
- Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP, 15 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court lacked jurisdiction over declaratory action where parties failed to exhaust administrative zoning remedies)
- Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 2000) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives trial court of subject matter jurisdiction)