Suttmiller v. City of Batesville on Behalf of Dept. of Redevelopment

• Decision Date: 09 June 1967
• Docket Number: No. 30973,30973
• Citation: 248 Ind. 391,226 N.E.2d 893
• Parties: Joseph B. SUTTMILLER and Elizabeth J. Suttmiller, Husband and Wife, and Citizens' Saving & Loan Association of Batesville, Indiana, Appellants, v. CITY OF BATESVILLE, on Behalf of its DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 893

226 N.E.2d 893

248 Ind. 391

Joseph B. SUTTMILLER and Elizabeth J. Suttmiller, Husband and Wife, and Citizens' Saving & Loan Association of Batesville, Indiana, Appellants, v. CITY OF BATESVILLE, on Behalf of its DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT, Appellee.

No. 30973.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 9, 1967.

George Rose, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Paul V. Wycoff, Batesville, Harry T. Ice, and James E. Hawes, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the appointment of appraisers and the overruling of objections to a complaint in a condemnation action brought under the provisions of the Redevelopment of Cities and Towns Act of 1953, as amended.

The Redevelopment Act authorized the bringing of a condemnation action under the eminent domain statute of this state. Prior to the bringing of the condemnation action, the Department of Redevelopment for the City of Batesville, pursuant to the Redevelopment Act, gave notice and held a public hearing to declare certain areas blighted, and thereupon adopted a confirming resolution.

The main contention of the appellants is that they had the right in the condemnation action brought thereafter to raise the issue as to whether or not the area covered by the declaratory resolution was or was not 'blighted'. It is the appellee's contention that the appellants' opportunity to raise such an issue was at the hearing before the Redevelopment Commission fixed in the notice; if appellants as remonstrators, were dissatisfied thereafter, the statute provided a method of appeal. The appellee further contends that appellants having foregone this method of appeal can not collaterally attack the resolution in the eminent domain proceedings.

We feel the appellee's contentions are correct. The Redevelopment Act provides the method of appeal in Ind.Ann.Stat. § 48--8555 (1963) which in substance is as follows:

'Any person(s) who shall have filed a written remonstrance with the redevelopment commissioners as provided in the foregoing section, who is aggrieved by the final action taken, may, within ten (10) days after such final action, file in the office of the clerk of the circuit or superior court a copy of the order of the commissioners and his remonstrance thereto, together with his bond conditioned to pay the costs of such appeal should the appeal be determined against him.'

In an action to condemn the property based upon a declaratory resolution, which resolution was adopted following notice and hearing, it is too late to raise a factual question as to the existence of a 'blighted area'. The statute granted an appeal and a hearing on the finding of the resolution declaring the area 'blighted', which finding the appellants seek in a later action to collaterally attack. By remonstrance and appeal within the procedural framework of the Act, any question may be raised, not merely those pertaining to the question of public utility and benefit, but also to the factual situation upon which the declaratory resolution presumes to be based, namely, was the area 'blighted'? Prunk v. Indpls. Redevelopment Comm. (1950), 228 Ind. 579, 93 N.E.2d 171.

In the absence of statutory provision for appeal or...