Robert Blackford v. Boone County Area Plan Commission and Boone County Drainage Board
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 623
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Boone County Area Plan Commission sued Robert Blackford (and his wife) alleging violations of Boone County Zoning and Stormwater/Drainage ordinances for large-scale dirt dumping, unpermitted construction trailer, and defiance of Stop Work Orders; sought injunctions, per-day fines, and fees.
- Blackford, a former prosecutor representing himself pro se, filed an answer denying ordinance violations, a counterclaim alleging perjury, and later opposed a motion to add the County Drainage Board as a plaintiff.
- The Plan Commission moved to amend its complaint on July 3 to add the Drainage Board; the court granted the motion (amended complaint deemed filed in early July); Blackford filed an opposition on July 21 but waited until the morning of the July 30 bench trial to request a continuance to hire counsel and to file an answer to the amended complaint.
- The trial court denied the oral, same-day continuance request, treated Blackford’s opposition as addressing the amended complaint, held the bench trial, and found violations of both ordinances.
- The court imposed injunction relief and assessed statutory per-day fines totaling $519,400 plus costs and attorney fees; Blackford’s motion to correct error arguing the continuance denial and procedural unfairness was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of an oral, same-day continuance to hire counsel was an abuse of discretion | Court should deny continuance; defendant had notice and opportunity to prepare | Blackford argued he needed time to hire counsel and research because amended complaint (adding Drainage Board) made the case more complex | Denial was not an abuse of discretion: no good-cause showing or affidavit; claims and drainage allegations were present in original complaint; request came on trial morning |
| Whether treating Blackford’s July 21 opposition as an answer to the amended complaint was erroneous | Not raised by plaintiff beyond arguing amended complaint was properly filed and timely | Blackford argued he was entitled to 20 days after amendment to file an answer and that the amendment substantively changed the case | Court did not err: opposition addressed drainage allegations and Trial Rules allow joinder/substitution of real party in interest; amendment related back to original complaint |
| Whether denial of continuance violated due process | County argued no due process violation because defendant had adequate notice and opportunity | Blackford claimed denial deprived him of counsel and fair hearing | No due process violation: defendant failed to show prejudice or good cause; precedent supports trial court discretion |
| Whether Trial Rule 15/17 timing required allowance for new answer after joinder of real party in interest | County relied on court’s discretion and Rule 17 relation-back principle | Blackford claimed 20-day reply period under Rule 15(A) applied from July 21 | Court concluded Rule 17 joinder of real party (Drainage Board) related back and trial court properly declined additional pleadings/time |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. 2009) (trial court’s denial of continuance to hire counsel reviewed for abuse of discretion; good-cause requirement and factors include scheduling, delay, simplicity of trial, and potential gaming)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (no mechanical test for continuance—due process depends on circumstances presented to trial judge)
- Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. 1997) (continuances for additional preparation disfavored; require showing of good cause and interest of justice)
- Lewis v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. 1987) (continuance requested for first time on trial morning is not favored)