28 N.E.3d 1077
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Long Beach adopted Resolution 12-008 (2012) adopting IDNR's position that the ordinary high water mark (OHW, 581.5 ft) delineates where State regulatory jurisdiction and, in certain instances, public ownership/use begins on Lake Michigan shoreline.
- Lakefront Owners (private littoral owners) sued the Town seeking declaratory relief that their property extends to the water’s edge (i.e., no public burden), and asserted takings and Home Rule Act claims after the Town’s resolution curtailed enforcement of private-property ordinances in certain zones.
- Intervenors (Alliance for the Great Lakes and Save the Dunes) asserted the State holds title to the bed up to OHW and public trust rights; the Town raised as an affirmative defense that the State/IDNR were necessary parties under Ind. Trial Rule 19.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Town on Counts I–IV, characterizing the resolution as a policy statement and declining to resolve ownership because that was a “pure question of law” for the Legislature or an appellate court with the State as party; later the court attempted to dispose of Count V after appeal was pending.
- On appeal the court focused on whether the State of Indiana (or state officials in official capacity) should have been joined under T.R. 19 and Ind. Declaratory Relief Act before ruling; it reversed summary judgment and remanded for joinder and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State (or state officials) were necessary/indispensable parties under Ind. Trial Rule 19 and Ind. Declaratory Relief Act | Lakefront Owners: the State/AG should be joined because the resolution and declaratory relief directly affect State title/public trust rights; AG had no objection to being added | Town/Alliance: the dispute is effectively between private owners and the State; joinder was unnecessary or would cause delay; plaintiffs should sue the State separately | Court: The State or appropriate state officials should have been joined; failure to join required reversal and remand for joinder before ruling on merits |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment on Count I (declaratory relief re boundary/public rights) | Lakefront Owners: Count I was proper and unresolved; court erred by not adjudicating ownership and public trust issues | Town: The Town did not assert ownership; as an attempt to quiet title plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties (State) | Court: Entry of summary judgment on Count I was improper because the State was not joined and ownership/public rights were not decided on merits |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment on Counts II–IV (42 U.S.C.-style/state takings claims) | Lakefront Owners: Takings analysis depends on scope of plaintiffs’ property interest below OHW; court erred to decide without State joined | Town: The resolution is a policy statement and not a taking; summary judgment warranted | Court: Reversed summary judgment on Counts II–IV and declined to address takings until State is joined and ownership is clarified |
| Whether trial court had authority to enter order on Count V after appellate record was complete | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court: April 24, 2014 order on Count V was void because appellate jurisdiction attached when clerk’s record was completed; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Skyline Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Ziolkowski Const., Inc., 957 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial court has discretion to determine indispensability under Rule 19)
- Rollins Burdick Hunter of Utah, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball State Univ., 665 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App.) (Rule 19 joinder is fact-sensitive and flexible; consider practicalities and policies)
- Harp v. Ind. Dep't of Highways, 585 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. Ct. App.) (declaratory relief against the State is limited; actions may be brought against state officials in their official capacities)
- State v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc., 902 N.E.2d 206 (Ind.) (factors relevant to takings analysis: economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and character of government action)
- Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate jurisdiction attaches when clerk’s record completion is noted; subsequent trial-court orders generally void)