Jablonski v. City Of Bloomington

Decision Date26 October 2010
Docket NumberNo. 53A01-0909-CV-454.,53A01-0909-CV-454.
PartiesJeff SAGARIN and Shirley Jablonski, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Appellee-Defendant.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

932 N.E.2d 739

Jeff SAGARIN and Shirley Jablonski, Appellants-Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Appellee-Defendant.

No. 53A01-0909-CV-454.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Aug. 20, 2010.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 2010.


932 N.E.2d 740

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

932 N.E.2d 741

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

932 N.E.2d 742

Joby D. Jerrells, Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellants.

Marjorie K. Rice, Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

OPINION
BAILEY, Judge.
Case Summary

Appellants-Plaintiffs Jeff Sagarin and Shirley Jablonski appeal the trial court's order regarding their claims for inverse condemnation and taking without just compensation against Appellee-Defendant the City of Bloomington (“the City”). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Issues

On appeal, the parties raise numerous issues. We consolidate and revise the issues raised by the Appellants to the following:

I. Whether the trial court erred by finding in favor of the City as to Sagarin's claims;

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying equitable relief; and

III. Whether the trial court erred in denying the award of attorney's fees.

On cross-appeal, the City raises the following issues:

IV. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations had been tolled by reason of the City's fraudulent concealment; and

V. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the inverse condemnation claim was not extinguished by the alternative creation of the easement by prescription or common law dedication.

Facts and Procedural History

In 1969, a more genteel time in Southern Indiana, where the family lawyer was not expected to be on retainer, Shirley and Robert Jablonski purchased a lot on Southdowns Drive, Bloomington, and built a home. The Jablonskis also obtained a variance from the City's sidewalk requirement because the rest of the neighborhood did not have sidewalks. Shirley Jablonski, a widow, still lives in the house.

There were two fatal accidents on a nearby road, High Street, both involving young girls being hit by a car. One occurred in 1964 and the other in 1972. In response to the accidents, the City installed a stop sign at High Street and Southdowns Drive. There was also a campaign by some of the neighborhood property owners to install either sidewalks or a walking path in the neighborhood to provide children walking to the nearby elementary school a safe place to walk. Suzanne Ziemer, a local resident and member of the local PTA, became actively involved in the campaign. Ziemer spoke with both the Jablonskis and their neighbor, Deborah Campbell, about installing a path running along their shared lot line for children to use to walk to and from school.

In 1972, a City employee visited the Jablonskis and Campbell to discuss the installation of a pathway. Neither homeowner signed a document granting the City an easement or providing permission to build the pathway on either property. When Campbell refused to agree to the installation of the pathway, the City employee indicated that her permission was

932 N.E.2d 743

not necessary because the City had the right to install the path. Similar statements were made to the Jablonskis. In late 1972, the City installed a small asphalt footpath that ran between the Campbell and Jablonski properties and then made a dog-leg to connect to the end of Greenwood Avenue.

In 1993, Sagarin purchased Campbell's former home. When viewing the home before purchasing it, Sagarin noticed the asphalt pathway and his realtor said that the City had an easement for it. When purchasing the home, Sagarin had a title search completed, which noted a utility easement but not one for the pathway.

In 2007, the City Engineer, Justin Wykoff, spoke with Sagarin to inform him that the City was going to widen the pathway to eight feet so that two wheel chairs or two bicycles could pass one another on the pathway. Sagarin went to the county clerk and City Hall to obtain copies of his deed and any easements related to his or Jablonski's property. There was no documentation as to the existence of an easement held by the City on the properties. On July 6, 2007, Sagarin and Jablonski filed a complaint against the City for claims of Ejectment and Quiet Title, Inverse Condemnation, and Taking Without Just Compensation. After unsuccessful attempts at mediation and summary judgment motions, a bench trial was held. On August 24, 2009, the trial court issued its order, entering judgment in favor of Jablonski on her inverse condemnation and taking without compensation claims but in favor of the City with regards to Sagarin's claims. Without mentioning attorney's fees, the court ordered appraisers to be appointed to value the easement and to assess damages. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the trial court entered findings of facts and conclusions of law at the conclusion of the bench trial. We review such findings and conclusions with a two-tiered standard of review: whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. City of South Bend v. Dollahan, 918 N.E.2d 343, 349 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied. Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous, i.e., when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. Id. A trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and the conclusions that rely upon the findings. Rennaker v. Gleason, 913 N.E.2d 723, 728 (Ind.Ct.App.2009).

In conducting our review, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of any witness, and must affirm the trial court's decision if the record contains any supporting evidence or inferences. Id. at 729. However, while we defer substantially to findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions of law. Id. We evaluate questions of law, such as interpretation of contractual provisions, de novo and owe no deference to a trial court's determination of such questions. Id.

I. Sagarin's Inverse Condemnation Claim

First, Sagarin appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of the City as to his inverse condemnation claim. There is simply no claim of inverse condemnation for Sagarin. 1 The City took the easement by inverse condemnation when Campbell

932 N.E.2d 744

owned the property. When Sagarin bought the property, he was informed by his real estate agent that there was a public easement on the lot. A main consideration to determine whether a taking has occurred is whether the impact of government action “has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.” Biddle v. BAA Indianapolis, LLC, 860 N.E.2d 570, 582 (Ind.2007) (quoting Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978)). As noted by the trial court, Sagarin's purchase of the property with the knowledge of the easement defeats any possible economic injury because that circumstance was an implicit consideration in the price negotiation of the home. Therefore, he has no basis for an inverse condemnation claim.

II. Manner of Relief

Next, Jablonski contends that she is entitled to the equitable relief of ejecting the City from the contested easement because the Indiana Constitution does not permit a governmental entity to take property by fraudulent means. However, the Indiana Supreme Court recently held that inverse condemnation is the sole remedy for a landowner when a governmental entity exercises complete dominance and purported ownership of a piece of land without utilizing the proper takings procedure. Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728, 733 (Ind.2010). The Court explained that the approach mirrors the bases of eminent domain proceeding provisions “designed to compensate the landowner but also to permit the public need to be satisfied relatively quickly and at no more than a fair price.” Id. at 732. “To allow alternative remedies would circumvent these provisions.” Id.

Jablonski's argument presupposes that the easement was taken by fraud as opposed to inverse condemnation. However, the City employee's subjective motive in making statements is not relevant; a determination of fraud is superfluous. Whether an action was initiated thirty-five years earlier or more recently, the recovery is the same. Where there is a public necessity for an easement, there is no equitable right to prevent a public entity from a taking. The most or least that Jablonski could expect is the same: value of the taken land, interest, and attorney's fees. Ind.Code § 32-24-1-14 and -16.

Consistent therewith, there is no distinction made by the Indiana Supreme Court in Murray that a taking by fraud would give rise to an alternative remedy. Furthermore, if ejectment was a possible remedy, its relief would be short-lived in these circumstances. The state has inherent authority to take private property for public use. Murray, 925 N.E.2d at 731.

While not unlimited, eminent domain proceedings are powerful instruments of government. Derloshon v. City of Fort Wayne on Behalf of Dep't of Redev., 250 Ind. 163, 166, 234 N.E.2d 269, 271 (1968). As long as the governmental entity intends to use the land for a public purpose that is constitutional, there are few defenses to prevent a taking. See id. Whereas the purpose of the easement here has a public purpose and no constitutional challenges as to the path's use have been raised, the City could respond to an order of ejectment by simply implementing eminent domain proceedings. “[I]njunctive relief is not available to prevent a taking for a public purpose.” Murray, 925 N.E.2d at 732. The end result would be the same: monetary damages. Therefore, the trial court did not err in awarding damages as opposed to the equitable relief of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • N. Natural Gas Co. v. Oneok Field Servs. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 15 d5 Março d5 2013
  • Knott v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 13 d4 Setembro d4 2012
  • Celebration Worship Ctr., Inc. v. Tucker
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 14 d3 Janeiro d3 2015
    ...easement must demonstrate intent to claim the right to use the portion of land for a specific purpose .” Sagarin v. City of Bloomington, 932 N.E.2d 739, 747 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), trans. denied. “And as with adverse possession, each element must be shown, and failure to establish any one elemen......
  • State v. Koorsen
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 1 d3 Dezembro d3 2021
    ...EDC Expense Statute's cap on litigation expenses "appl[ies] to inverse condemnation proceedings"); accord Sagarin v. City of Bloomington , 932 N.E.2d 739, 745 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT