Newell v. Standard Land Corp., 2--173A25

Docket NºNo. 2--173A25
Citation156 Ind.App. 597, 297 N.E.2d 842
Case DateJune 28, 1973
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 842

297 N.E.2d 842
156 Ind.App. 597
James O. NEWELL et al., Appellants,
v.
STANDARD LAND CORPORATION et al., Appellees.
No. 2--173A25.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
June 28, 1973.

Mentor A. Kraus, John M. Clifton, Jr., Wayne L. Witmer, Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, Fort Wayne, for appellants; J. A. Bruggeman, Fort Wayne, of counsel.

Robert L. Thompson, Jr., Hoffman, Moppert, Solomon & Miller, Fort Wayne, for appellee, Standard Land Corp.

Carl J. Suedhoff, Jr., Hunt, Suedhoff, Borror & Eilbacher, Fort Wayne, for appellees, John C. Gould, Mrs. John C. Gould, and Scotia Development Corp.

James R. Solomon, Hoffman, Moppert, Solomon & Miller, Fort Wayne, for appellees, Otis McFadden, Ezra Shanebeck, Robert Hattersly, William Bergdall, Merle Felger, William Sowers, William Sweet, George Dunten, and Charles Hoemig, Individually and Collectively as Allen County Plan Commission.

SHARP, Judge.

[156 IND.APP. 598] SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE.

Appellants filed a complaint in multiple paragraphs alleging that they were the

Page 843

owners of real estate in Aboite Township, Allen County, Indiana which is contiguous to Brook Hollow Drive. Count I of the complaint alleged that the Appellants had purchased their real estate from the Appellee, Standard Land Corporation, hereafter SLC, and in purchasing it SLC represented to them that said real estate was a part of and subject to the land use restrictions of Brook Hollow Estates. It further alleged that SLC and Appellees, John C. Gould and Scotia Development Corporation, hereafter SDC, owned or claimed to own land which is a part of Brook Hollow Estates and were threatening to use or develop the same in violation of the restrictions applicable to said real estate. It was further alleged that Appellees, John C. Gould and SDC, had filed a preliminary plat of the proposed development with the Allen County Plan Commission, which preliminary plat included a substantial portion of Brook Hollow Estates and proposed uses therein in violation of the Brook Hollow Estates restrictions. Count I prayed for an injunction from proceeding on said proposed plat. Count II prayed for money damages on the basis of the allegations in Count I. Count III was a class action which asserted that Allen County Ordinance number 9--1960 on its face violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and also violated Article I, Section 21 and 23, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and further alleged that Allen County ordinance 9--1960 was illegal, arbitrary and capricious in that it violated the enabling legislation of the State of Indiana authorizing the establishment of zoning ordinances and plan commissions in that it did not specify ecological factors as a criterion to be considered in respect to proposed plats. A permanent injunction was prayed for in Count III.

Count IV alleged that Allen County ordinance 9--1960 was unconstitutional in that it provided unreasonable classifications [156 Ind.App. 599] of persons entitled to be given notice and to be heard in respect to proposed plats.

Count V alleged that the approval of a lake on Appellees' land was made without utilization of proper standards and was therefore arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Count VI alleged that the proposed sewage treatment plant in conjunction with the development proposed by the Appellees would empty into the result in the pollution of Indian Creek, a natural course, and prayed for an injunction preventing the defendants from erecting or constructing a sewage treatment plant to empty into Indian Creek.

In June of 1968 Appellee, John C. Gould, purchased approximately 37 acres of land in Aboite Township, Allen County, Indiana from Appellee SLC. Part of the land Gould purchased from SLC was a section in what is commonly known as Brook Hollow. At the time of Gould's purchase, some of the Appellants owned portions of Brook Hollow consisting of parcels ranging from three acres to twelve acres each. These Appellants had also purchased their land from SLC and assert that their purchases were made with certain restrictions imposed thereon. The record here clearly discloses that there was never any express written covenants covering the restrictions of the use of the land purchased by the Appellants from SLC and there was never any such restrictions recorded. The Appellants have asserted by way of deposition testimony that SLC made certain verbal agreements as to restrictions of use concerning the estates which the Appellants purchased. Gould has sworn to the fact that SLC told him that there were no restrictions of use when he purchased his land subsequent to that of the Appellants in June of 1968. Gould claims ignorance of any alleged restrictions of use which may have existed between the Brook Hollow Appellants and SLC on the basis that he had no actual knowledge of the same and that no public record disclosed the existence of said restrictions. After Gould purchased the real estate he decided to develop

Page 844

[156 Ind.App. 600] a part of the land which consisted of approximately 37 acres by the construction of a lake and a tertiary disposal sewage treatment plant on the far southeast corner thereof, not adjacent to any land owned by the Appellants in Brook Hollow. The plans for development consisted of common areas for recreation, bridle paths, natural walkways, water falls and a lake and beach, all of which are adjacent to a planned residential area on land adjacent to but not a part of Brook Hollow. In November of 1970, over two years after Gould purchased the land he submitted his development plan to the Allen County Plan Commission. The complaint in this case was filed by the Appellants on January 7, 1971. In November 1970 and March 13, 1971 the Allen County Zoning ordinance was amended to cause a broader group of persons and legal entities to be given notice of public hearings which are conducted pursuant to plans submitted by those such as the ones submitted by Gould. The public hearing concerning Gould's plan took place on April 14, 1971 and preliminary approval of the Gould plan was approved by the Allen County Plan Commission. There was a public hearing conducted on September 8, 1971 to consider the final plat of the proposed plan and final approval was given. The Allen County Plan commission provided notice to all of the Appellants in this cause of said hearing because all Appellants were within the broad group of persons defined in the ordinance as having a 'probable interest' in the Plan Commission's approval or disapproval of the Gould plan. Before the Allen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Merry v. State, No. 2--774A184
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 7 October 1975
    ...knowledge.' Referring to the affidavit requirement of TR. 56(E), this court, in Newell v. Standard Land Corporation (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 842 compared a hearsay affidavit to hearsay testimony and refused to admit the affidavit because it contained inadmissible Page 268 In the case at......
  • Massey v. St. Joseph Bank and Trust Co., No. 3-580A128
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 October 1980
    ...issues, see, e. g., Anderson v. Indiana State Employees' Comm'n (1977), Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 1040; Newell v. Standard Land Corp. (1973), 156 Ind.App. 597, 297 N.E.2d 842; Clemans Truck Lines, Inc. v. Vaughn (1966), 139 Ind.App. 404, 213 N.E.2d 470, we prefer to reach the merits of this case......
  • Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort, Ind., No. 2-581A150
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 9 August 1983
    ...argument relating to this claimed error. See Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Newell v. Standard Land Corp. (1973) 156 Ind.App. 597, 297 N.E.2d 842. Therefore, he has waived this alleged Even were it otherwise, any error in examining the deposition prior to ruling on Briggs......
  • Podgorny v. Great Central Ins. Co., No. 3--673A64
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 May 1974
    ...Renn v. Davidson's Southport Lumber Co., Inc. (1973), Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 682; Newell v. Standard Land Corporation (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 842. Paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 of Podgorny's affidavit present merely legal conclusions, and as such cannot support his motion. The same defe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Merry v. State, No. 2--774A184
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 7 October 1975
    ...knowledge.' Referring to the affidavit requirement of TR. 56(E), this court, in Newell v. Standard Land Corporation (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 842 compared a hearsay affidavit to hearsay testimony and refused to admit the affidavit because it contained inadmissible Page 268 In the case at......
  • Massey v. St. Joseph Bank and Trust Co., No. 3-580A128
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 October 1980
    ...issues, see, e. g., Anderson v. Indiana State Employees' Comm'n (1977), Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 1040; Newell v. Standard Land Corp. (1973), 156 Ind.App. 597, 297 N.E.2d 842; Clemans Truck Lines, Inc. v. Vaughn (1966), 139 Ind.App. 404, 213 N.E.2d 470, we prefer to reach the merits of this case......
  • Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort, Ind., No. 2-581A150
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 9 August 1983
    ...argument relating to this claimed error. See Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Newell v. Standard Land Corp. (1973) 156 Ind.App. 597, 297 N.E.2d 842. Therefore, he has waived this alleged Even were it otherwise, any error in examining the deposition prior to ruling on Briggs......
  • Podgorny v. Great Central Ins. Co., No. 3--673A64
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 May 1974
    ...Renn v. Davidson's Southport Lumber Co., Inc. (1973), Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 682; Newell v. Standard Land Corporation (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 842. Paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 of Podgorny's affidavit present merely legal conclusions, and as such cannot support his motion. The same defe......
  • 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