*1 Bahre, (1977) President, Systems, from Na- work Inc. v. siphon profits was to den.; payments Ind.App. of inflated rental trans. by way tron - Ind.App. Garver, -, It is remodeling expenses. Borger and and other in- N.E.2d 370 (1981). agree that the decisions argued by not Ross We with the trial relating corporate transac- court that appellant volved to the has no corpo- further Natron, Alarm, and tions between National appellant corpo- al has no further court that September to Energy prior National personal rate or claims Natron anything Inc., than and volun- openly were Corp., Systems, Energy National parties arrived at all three tarily and either for directors Tavel Lawson It be at the time were made. would they wages minority or as a shareholder. permit then to Ross point at this inequitable Judgment affirmed. his to assert either in name or name behind Na- Energy of National the fiction J., NEAL, J., ROBERTSON, P. and con- $30,- for agreement tron’s to cancel its lease cur. flowing 000 so back Na- that funds its creditors. pay tron could used to Energy

Both Natron and National were corporation for

really one all intents

purposes payment other than taxes. property

The law is clear corporate that be appropriated corporation’s

must to a thereof debts before distribution BEND, OF SOUTH CITY Corpora- made to the shareholders. 6 I.L.E. Appellant-Defendant, (1958); v. Grant Trust Campbell tions 124 § Co., Savings (1932) & FARM, (1933). N.E. trans. den. Here BROOKSFIELD Appellee-Plaintiff. found that Natron in fact owed National $30,000, Alarm hence of that debt payment No. 3-780A205. law distribu- prior mandated Indiana, Appeals corporate tion of assets to Ross as a share- Third District. holder.7 found,

Finally, the court and evi March dence or reasonable inferences therefrom 7, 1981. Rehearing May Denied support, agreed will that Ross the fact van and from accept equipment the 1973 in corporation to use in his own business settling his cooperation

return for corporation, in

unfinished business of

cluding payment of Natron’s creditors. principals corporation

Where the have respect corpo

settled their claims affairs, from they

rate will be barred reas

serting already compromised. those claims Inc., Bonding, E P

Epperly v. & Brake

supra.

After a the record we thorough review of definitely

are firmly not convinced that See, University

the trial court erred. Case- that presented contention such “loan” was fact con- 7. We are neither with an “interested capital. sleeping dogs regarding free tribution to let director” claim the interest loan We from lie. National Alarm to Natron nor with the *2 Hill, City L. Atty., Richard James A. Bend, Masters, Deputy City Atty., South appellant-defendant. for Kramer, Schuster, Brian F. Richard S. Kramer, Bend, Snyder, Jaicomo & South for appellee-plaintiff.

STATON, Judge. (Farm) filed a declara-

Brooksfield Farm tory judgment seeking action the invalida- assessment, City the tion of an made Bend for construction of a (City), South the system. alleged sewer The Farm that the the method of proceeding, respect to determination of the was defec- comply tive in that it did not with the et requirements seq. of IC any respon- the to file City After had failed ne- pleading sive within 20 and had appointed at the time for glected appear judgment hearing, granted the by default. It declared the assessment in appeal, to be invalid. the On judgment if this is void and asks pursuant whether it should be set aside Procedure, 60(B)(6). Trial Ind. Rules of Rule We affirm. essence,

In the whether the City asks appeal process, as set forth in IC (now 19-2-7-131 and IC delivery 19-2-7-13. Modification or remonstrance with the board. The “[IC 1971] proper confirmation assessment rolls—Decisions of the assessment roll to the fiscal Right of board city of owners to review— officer or town shall not be de- final — proceedings layed Defects proceedings, on account of the nor —Procedure.—The complete board shall rights any the roll and render its property shall the other holder special decision as to all the benefits mod- thereby. any be affected In case assessment roll, ifying confirming or the assessment proceedings, is reduced in such the board showing special oppo- the amount of benefits certify proper shall the correction to the fis- description, site each name and and town, city cal officer of the or who shall enter town, city city or if it is found that the or proper amount of the assessment benefited, and, specially town is when com- If roll. there is a defect in the pleted, the roll assessment shall be delivered respect per- with sons, to one or more interested proper to fiscal officer of the or proceed- the same shall not affect the town. ings except may so far as it affect the interest “The decision of the board as to all benefits property person persons of the parties: shall be final and conclusive on all any person shall not avail therein. In Provided, parcel That owner of lot or defect, supplementary proceedings case of assessed, right of land shall have the to take general of the same character as those here- superior an to the circuit or court of inbefore described be had to correct or in which the or town is locat- supply the "same.” ed, provided the owner has filed a written precedent exercise of “review tion to the facts-at-bar. applicable repealed)2 court. Failure void, jurisdiction” by the trial Arguing judgment that the juris statutory mandate comply with the subject matter claims that the court lacked U., Ind. Intern. dictional. Civ. R. Com’m from the to consider the jurisdiction Auto., (1979), Ind.App., 385 Etc. United Farm had not board’s decision because-the v. Real Estate Com Gleason *3 as set forth appellate process the followed 344, 300 (1973), Ind.App. 157 N.E.2d mission 1971, 1971, 18-5- 19-2-7-13 and IC IC has, however, legislature 116. Where the (now repealed). disagree. We 17-1 remedy statutory a of provide to failed 1971, that “The 19-2-7-13 states IC broad, sufficiently the court appeal which is complete the roll and render its board shall of grant will such a review. Mann by special the benefits3 decision as to all 245, 163 (1960), 240 Ind. N.E.2d Terre Haute confirming the assessment modifying or review judicial to litigant 577. A is entitled Its “as to all benefits” roll.” decision by taken a action of an administrative to the circuit or appealable final and not of the failure the notwithstanding board owner has filed a superior court unless “the Lugar Dortch v. provide. to so legislature board.” IC with the written remonstrance 25, 545, 47-48. (1971), 255 Ind. 1971, (now repealed) indicates 18-5-17-1 review, will not look to In such a that, must file his appeal, to the owner board, of for that the opinion its substitute from the date of days within 30 complaint rather, proceedings so it will review the but he complaining. the about which decision procedural re whether the as to determine with The Farm filed neither a remonstrance Mann, followed. su have been quirements requi complaint a within the the board nor pra. was no In our there days. opinion, site 30 provided a Clearly, legislature the reading A of these need for it to do so. fair challenge to appeal mechanism statutory persuades only partes us that those statutes assessment; did not of an it the amount special made as to appealing determinations to al directed process an appeal formulate of resulting amounts- as benefits and the statutory in the leged defects forego follow the required sessments are If the the assessments. which validate ing procedures. statutory appeal could action declaratory judgment Farm’s appeal of of the judicial review as an interpreted In an action for been have 1971, determination, then IC compli an administrative amount of the (now 1971, IC 18-5-17-1 with a condi- 19-2-7-13 and statutory requirements ance 2. the same which Complaint. works any city, either or both such board, any plaint. the statute or decision transcript. cities wherein it parties appealing filing nal Such “Fourth: Where an “[IC thirty complaint against action statute from complaint in the circuit or may or the board of shall be taken wherein such Such 1971, ^[30] —AH or applicable or hereafter be allowed complained Such authorizing s{s decision of the appeals on complaint appeals may join performs from common s}s appeal boards, by such thereto, park shall not be taken action or decision superior of, Hi is located an shall be filed with- in the same com- commissioners date (now repealed)] council party appealing, or is authorized board of shall contain: appeal, sfc as defendant. one functions of court by allowed, any law or more of such renders sfc where action of the public origi- from by or 3. adapted This when for the relieve it ue.” Hubenthal at § law, Clermont 1971, The not such plaint ages or decision of such 175, see IC statute Indiano v. involve, party “they term effective or board, 159 N.E.2d 850 purposes shall also from a the assessment (1973), of the amount “special appealing 1971, increase the purpose or or common April et which it [is] repealed burden, 34-4-17.5-1 et seq. allege specifically Crain benefits” Ind.App. board.” pertinent sections of IC 1, complaints which at Indianapolis 1980. Benefits value of the of 853; or make it of the award (1959), by council, benefits, not limited Acts enhances is word Fritz v. Town of For the seq. 239 are of the action 1980, which does 292 (1971), such com- especially property, “special” Ind. wherein of dam- present its val- N.E.2d to, P.L. of art 646, the 8, court, down, ordained, “[tjhat which is laid applied. have The would repealed)4 jurisdiction had the then, not have according would A rule or method established. action, The Farm’s how- hear the matter. or actions co-exist or phenomena which ever, upon alleged defects was based follow each other. That which must court, therefore, prop- proceedings and citizens, subject obeyed and followed pursuant to IC erly jurisdiction, had legal consequences, to sanctions or is a ” 34-4-10-1, to hear it. ‘law.’ Judgment affirmed. (4th ed. Black’s Law Dictionary 1951). J., GARRARD, concurs. also, Highland Randall v. Town of See HOFFMAN, J., opinion. P. dissents (1981) Among N.E.2d 891. Ind.App., HOFFMAN, “law” many examples of what Presiding Judge, dissenting. *4 ju- provisions, are: constitutional embrace majority’s I from the respectfully dissent Black’s judgments. dicial decisions and reverse and remand this opinion and would 1028. Dictionary Law at to dismiss the action case with instructions untimely as filed. being 1971, was en At the time IC acted, from the deci person appeal could 1971, part: in provides IC public only sion a board of works when of allowed, or which appeals “All granted statutory had au Legislature by hereafter be allowed law from g., City Gary to do so. e. of thority See of public action or decision of the board 242; 445, (1931), N.E. Roper 202 Ind. park works or the board of commissioners (1929), City Murdick v. of Muncie 201 Ind. of the common council of any city, or 245, how 167 N.E. 132. Since that time it the func- performs such cities wherein ever, Supreme the Indiana Court has de boards, or of tions of either or both such process every mandates de clared that due board, by be taken any other shall agency cision of an administrative be re filing in the circuit or party appealing, a court. Judicial review exists by wherein such viewable superior court of the located, Legisla city original complaint notwithstanding an the failure of the defendant. specifically provide proce as Such ture to for such a 545, be filed within complaint appeal (1971), shall Lugar dure. Dortch v. 255 Ind. thirty ^[30] days from the date of the 25; Mann v. City of Terre of, and one complained action or decision 245, 163 (1960), Haute et al. 240 Ind. N.E.2d may join or more in the parties appealing et a l. State ex rel. of Marion complaint.” (Emphasis added.) same 315, (1959), 239 Ind. Grant Cir. Ct. Warren v. Indi generally, N.E.2d 188. See interprets The majority apparently (1940), Telephone ana 217 Ind. word Co. being synonymous “law” as thirty-day To hold interpretation “statute.” an N.E.2d 399. that Although such of Richmond v. of 18-5-17-1 does not previously made limitation IC O., (1975), S. M. Inc. apply to Brooksfield Farm is tantamount 797, I believe it to unduly limited holding pronouncements of the In that and contrary express language to the of IC guaranteeing Supreme diana 1971, 18-5-17-1. law in this right judicial of review are not

“Law” is defined as state. limited, statute, City suggests language an The that to a situation 1C (now repealed) by any 18—5—17—1Fourth makes which “an is authorized statute 30-day filing requirement applicable ap- ap- the peals An from peal process action ... such board.” defects, concerning procedural alleged as well as to be utilized in the case of dealing procedural those is not with the amount of assessments. defects such, speak appeals While this section does which “authorized statute.” As IC (now repealed) inapplica- are not confined to the of the amount 18 5-17-1 Fourth persuaded of an we are that such ble. frustrates the also majority’s decision

The 1971,18-5-17-1. The statute of IC

purpose which a thirty days within

provides for of the board challenge the acts

person may allows the The limitation public works. at the end projects with its proceed interruption fear of without thirty delays The costs and

from future lawsuits. majority’s from the deci-

which could follow

sion would be tremendous. would reverse reasons I

For above with instructions this action

and remand

that it be dismissed. *5 ZALUD, Sing- Elliott H. A. Jr. and

John (Defendants Below),

er, Appellants ASSOCIATES, Appellee

ETHAN

(Plaintiff Below). 3-1180A342.

No. Indiana, Appeals District.

Third

March