Julie Kitchell v. Ted Franklin, as the Mayor of the City of Logansport, and The Common Council of the City of Logansport
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 123
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Logansport sought a public-private partnership under Indiana’s PPA Act to replace a coal plant; the Common Council passed Ordinance No. 2013-07 (authorize MOU/negotiation) and Resolution No. 2013-08 (adopt PPA Act).
- Resident Julie Kitchell sued Mayor Franklin and the Common Council seeking declaratory relief, arguing the City had to adopt the PPA Act locally before issuing an RFP (i.e., the Resolution had to precede the Ordinance).
- The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the PPA Act contains no sequencing requirement and the City complied with statutory procedures (Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020).
- The City sought trial-level attorneys’ fees under Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b), arguing Kitchell’s suit was frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, and in bad faith; the trial court adopted the City’s proposed findings verbatim and awarded $24,235 in fees.
- On appeal, Kitchell challenged (1) the court’s verbatim adoption of the City’s proposed findings, (2) certain factual findings (including reliance on a newspaper quote), and (3) characterization of the claim as unreasonable/frivolous; she also argued a first-impression claim should preclude fees.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: verbatim adoption of proposed findings is not per se infirm; even excluding challenged findings, remaining findings supported that Kitchell’s claim was unreasonable and groundless; a “first-impression” label did not shield an entirely frivolous claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in awarding attorney fees under I.C. § 34-52-1-1(b) | Kitchell: her suit raised a valid legal question (sequencing under PPA Act); fees improper because case was one of first impression and court’s findings were unreliable | City: the claim was legally meritless—statutes contain no sequencing requirement; fees proper for frivolous/unreasonable/groundless suit | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; claim was at least unreasonable and groundless, so fees allowed |
| Whether verbatim adoption of the City’s proposed findings renders them inherently suspect | Kitchell: verbatim adoption undermines confidence that findings reflect independent judicial judgment | City: adoption is permissible; correctness of findings controls, not their provenance | Court: adoption not per se defective; review focuses on whether findings are clearly erroneous; here findings supported award |
| Whether characterization as a matter of first impression insulates claimant from fee award | Kitchell: first-impression cases merit special caution before labeling claims frivolous | City: this was not a legitimate first-impression issue—arguments were wholly unsupported | Court: first-impression caution applies, but not where the claim is entirely frivolous; fee award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Old Nat’l Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2012) (standards of review for fee findings and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2013) (Supreme Court ruling on merits that PPA Act contains no sequencing requirement)
- Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 2003) (discussing concerns when trial court adopts party-submitted findings verbatim)
- Prowell v. State, 741 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. 2001) (acknowledging common practice of adopting party proposed findings but noting erosion of appellate confidence)
- Wagler v. W. Boggs Sewer Dist., Inc., 980 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (definitions and standards for frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless claims)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. 1998) (policy balance between zealous advocacy and discouraging unwarranted litigation)
- Kahn v. Cundiff, 533 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (same policy considerations referenced in fee awards)
- N. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Torma, 819 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (losing on the merits does not by itself make a claim frivolous)