Tipton County Board of Commissioners v. Gayle Prather
75 N.E.3d 536
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017

Background

  • Robert and Gayle Prather live near 886 W. Jefferson St., the site chosen for a new Tipton County Law Enforcement Center; their property is about 89 feet from the proposed facility.
  • Tipton County Commissioners obtained a special exception from the Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to build the facility; the Prathers remonstrated but the BZA granted the exception.
  • The Prathers filed a petition for judicial review challenging the BZA decision, asserting harms to their property value, traffic/safety issues, inadequate BZA findings, and an improper vote.
  • The Commissioners moved under Indiana’s Public Lawsuit Statute (Ind. Code ch. 34-13-5) to require the Prathers to post a bond, seeking dismissal if no bond posted.
  • The trial court denied the Commissioners’ motion to set a bond, concluding the Public Lawsuit Statute did not apply to the Prathers’ petition; the Commissioners appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Prather) Defendant's Argument (Commissioners) Held
Whether the Public Lawsuit Statute applies to the Prathers’ judicial review petition Prathers argued they are asserting private, property-based injuries (loss of property value, private nuisance/rights) not a public lawsuit Commissioners argued the petition questions the location/character of a public improvement and thus is a public lawsuit requiring a bond Court held statute inapplicable: plaintiffs seek to protect private property interests, so bond not required

Key Cases Cited

  • Pepinsky v. Monroe Cty. Council, 461 N.E.2d 128 (1984) (defines public lawsuit scope where actions challenge public project policy and procedures)
  • Dible v. City of Lafayette, 713 N.E.2d 269 (1999) (individual landowner action to protect private property is not a public lawsuit)
  • Buse v. Trustees of Luce Twp. Reg’l Sewer Dist., 953 N.E.2d 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishes public-importance claims from actions protecting individual property rights)
  • ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192 (2016) (statutory interpretation principles; review is de novo)
Read the full case