Rollett Family Farms, LLC v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville-Vanderburgh County
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 384
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Rollett Family Farms, LLC owns a riverside parcel in Vanderburgh County divided informally into ~25 "river camps" leased to tenants; camps were in use by 1938–1957 but the parcel has been assessed as a single tax parcel.
- Rollett sought to convey individual camp parcels to tenants but learned those parcels did not meet Vanderburgh County Code (VCC) subdivision standards.
- Rollett sued the Area Plan Commission (APC), County Commissioners, and Recorder seeking declarations that the camps qualify under the VCC exemption for a "lot of record" that existed in its present configuration and size prior to 1957, and seeking orders directing recording of deeds.
- At trial Rollett offered a 2008 survey and testimony from long‑time local residents asserting the camps’ boundaries were essentially unchanged since before 1957; no recorded plats or recorded deeds describing individual camp boundaries pre‑1957 were produced.
- The trial court found witness recollections insufficient to establish legal lot lines or a pre‑1957 recorded lot; it ruled the APC did not control recording and held the exemption did not apply. Rollett appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the camps are "lots of record" exempt from subdivision rules | Rollett: "lot of record" requires no recorded documentation; long‑term use and surveys show camps existed in same configuration pre‑1957 | APC: "of record" requires public documentation (recorded deed or plat); use evidence alone is insufficient | The court held "of record" requires a public record (recorded deed/plat); no exemption without such documentation |
| Whether oral testimony and survey evidence can establish pre‑1957 lot boundaries for recording purposes | Rollett: long‑time resident testimony and survey show continuous boundaries sufficient to identify lots | APC: Statute of Frauds and recording practice require written documentation; oral evidence cannot establish legal lot lines | Court held recollections and survey markers do not satisfy requirement for legally established parcel descriptions; writing required |
| Whether zoning/subdivision ordinances unlawfully interfere with vested property rights | Rollett: vested rights protect pre‑1957 property configurations from ordinance constraints | APC: Uses are protected as nonconforming, but creation of new nonconforming lots not permitted absent pre‑existing recorded lot lines | Court held use may be nonconforming but that does not permit creating new nonconforming lots absent pre‑1957 recorded documentation |
| Whether the APC controls recording of deeds and may refuse recording absent subdivision approval | Rollett argued recorder was refusing to record | APC: APC does not control recording; it reviews deeds to advise of potential ordinance violations | Trial court found APC does not control recording; Rollett did not challenge this ruling on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall Drive Ins., Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, 773 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2002) (rules for interpreting ordinances mirror statutes; plain meaning controls)
- Hartley v. Hartley, 862 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for findings and conclusions under Trial Rule 52(A))
- Viles v. Town of Embden, 905 A.2d 298 (Me. 2006) (interpreting "lot of record" to require existence as a separate recorded lot at ordinance effective date)
- Camplin v. Town of York, 471 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1984) (undefined statutory terms given common meaning; "lot of record" applies to recorded lots existing when ordinance took effect)