Jacobsville Developers East v. Warrick Cty.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 87A01-0809-CV-420.,87A01-0809-CV-420. |
| Parties | JACOBSVILLE DEVELOPERS EAST, LLC, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. WARRICK COUNTY, Indiana by and through the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WARRICK COUNTY, Indiana and the Warrick County Area Planning Commission, Appellees/Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James D. Johnson, Krista B. Lockyear, Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP, Evansville, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Maurice E. Doll, Morrie Doll & Associates, LLC, Newburgh, IN, Attorney for Appellee Warrick County Area Planning Comm'n.
Shawn M. Sullivan, Terrell, Baugh, Salmon & Born, LLP, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellee Board of Comm'rs of Warrick County.
Jacobsville Developers East, LLC ("JDE"), appeals the trial court's dismissal of its complaint for inverse condemnation against the Warrick County Board of Commissioners ("County") and the Warrick County Area Planning Commission ("APC"). We affirm.
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing JDE's inverse condemnation action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
JDE owns real property in Warrick County. The County's Thoroughfare Plan had designated that, as a part of the County's long-range transportation plan, a public road be placed across a portion of JDE's property. In 2007, JDE filed an application with the APC seeking approval of a two-lot subdivision. Lot 2 of the subdivision consists of approximately four acres, upon which JDE planned to construct a physicians' center.2 JDE's proposed plat designated a fifty-foot strip of land adjoining its northern boundary of Lot 2 as a building setback. The County Subdivision Control Ordinance ("Ordinance"), however, required that the fifty-foot strip be designated and dedicated as a right-of-way:
The Street and Highway design shall conform both in width and alignment to any Comprehensive Plan or Thoroughfare Plan of Streets and Highways approved and/or adopted by any participating city or town or the County as indicated in the Thoroughfare Plan being a part of the Long Range Transportation Plan. Right-of-way for any such street or highway indicated on said Thoroughfare Plan shall be dedicated.
Appellant's App. at 64 (quoting Subdivision Control Ordinance, Article IV § 2(1)) (emphasis added).
On July 11, 2007, following a public hearing, the APC voted to deny JDE's application on the grounds that the proposed plat failed to comply with the Ordinance's dedication provision. On August 10, 2007, JDE filed a certiorari action in Warrick Circuit Court, alleging that the required dedication was not reasonably or rationally related to the impact of the proposed subdivision and that the denial of the proposed plat constituted an unconstitutional exaction without just compensation. On September 5, 2007, JDE's attorney sent a letter to the County's attorney stating that the County must be named as a party to the certiorari action because it, not the APC, possessed the power to amend the Ordinance. Appellant's App. at 155. However, the County was never made a party to this action. On October 9, 2007, JDE and the APC agreed to dismiss the certiorari action.
On October 10, 2007, JDE filed a second application with the APC for approval of a plat that included a dedicated right-of-way along the northern boundary of Lot 2. During the hearing on the second application, JDE objected to including the dedicated right-of-way, but indicated that it needed to proceed with the plat approval process to avoid increased economic losses. On that date, the APC voted unanimously to approve JDE's second application.
On December 20, 2007, JDE filed a three-count inverse condemnation action against the County and the APC, alleging that the Ordinance's dedication requirement constituted a "taking" without just compensation.3 On February 18, 2008, the County and the APC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6). On July 21, 2008, the trial court heard arguments on the motion. On August 14, 2008, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed all three counts. The trial court did not enter specific findings. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
JDE asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing its inverse condemnation action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion "is a function of what occurred in the trial court and is dependent upon: (i) whether the trial court resolved disputed facts; and (ii) if the trial court resolved disputed facts, whether it conducted an evidentiary hearing or ruled on a paper record." H.D. v. BHC Meadows Hosp., 884 N.E.2d 849, 852 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. If the facts before the trial court are undisputed, then the question of subject matter jurisdiction is purely one of law, and we give no deference to the trial court's conclusion. Id. If a factual dispute exists and the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing, we defer to its findings and judgment. Id. at 852-53. If the trial court does not conduct a hearing and make such findings, then we are in as good a position as the trial court to determine the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore will not defer to its judgment. Id. One basis upon which a trial court may lack subject matter jurisdiction is a party's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utils., Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641, 644 (Ind.1995).
Here, the trial court dismissed JDE's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on JDE's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Because the facts are undisputed and the trial court did not enter findings, we review the subject matter jurisdiction issue de novo. JDE asserts that it exhausted the administrative remedies available to it by obtaining a final decision within the agency and, as such, was not required to seek and complete the certiorari review process before initiating its inverse condemnation action.
In Indiana, if a party is required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act ("AOPA") to exhaust its administrative remedies before an agency before obtaining judicial review of the agency decision, courts are completely ousted of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case at all. Id. at 644; see also Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-4 (). "Even when neither statute nor agency rule specifically mandates exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review, the general rule is that a party is not entitled to judicial relief for an alleged or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted." Austin Lakes, 648 N.E.2d at 644. The purpose of the exhaustion rule is to defer judicial review until controversies have been channeled through the complete administrative process, providing the parties and courts the benefit of the agency's expertise and providing the agency an opportunity to correct its own errors and to compile a record adequate for any subsequent judicial review. Id.
Here, JDE initially filed an application for plat approval with the APC pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-703. Next, when the APC denied the application, JDE sought certiorari review. See Ind.Code § 36-7-4-708 (). Then, JDE sent a letter to the County stating its desire to add the County as a party because only the County possessed authority to modify the Ordinance. Finally, before the certiorari process was complete, JDE dismissed the action and went back to the APC with a new plat application.
JDE claims that it was not required to fully pursue the certiorari process because the certiorari court lacked authority to provide the kind of remedy JDE sought.4 See LHT Capital, LLC v. Indiana Horse Racing Comm'n, 895 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (), trans. denied (2009). Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-1009 places limits upon a certiorari court's remedies. Pursuant to the statute, the certiorari court may consider supplementary evidence and pass on the legality of the area plan commission's action by affirming, modifying, or reversing the action. As such, the certiorari court lacks authority to impose a compensatory remedy. See Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen County, 306 F.3d 445, 455 (7th Cir. 2002) (). In Daniels, the court addressed the issue of whether certiorari review is a required component of exhaustion of remedies in takings cases. The court concluded that if the remedy sought was monetary, and the certiorari court could not provide that remedy, then exhaustion would not require a decision from the certiorari court. 306 F.3d at 455; see also Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) ().
Thus, if JDE was seeking monetary compensation from the certiorari court, then its voluntary dismissal would not result in a failure to exhaust, as the certiorari court would have been without authority to provide a monetary remedy anyway. Conversely, if JDE was...
To continue reading
Request your trial