Check out the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court in Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 90S04-1208-PL-450 (Apr. 11, 2013. The issue is what the term “rehear … de novo” means in Indiana’s eminent domain code relating to condemnations by cities and towns, which provides for such review by trial courts on administrative appeal from a valuation assessment by a municipal works board. The city had the option to condemn the property either under that provision, or under the general eminent domain statute in which the landowner would be entitled to demand a jury.
The landowner objected to the board’s valuation, and demanded a jury trial. The trial court granted the city’s motion to strike the jury demand, concluding that “de novo” only required a limited review of the administrative record to insure that the valuation decision was made “in conformity with proper legal procedure.”
The Supreme Court reversed, after first noting that “[a]t first blush it would appears that this case is a ‘no brainer,'” because “de novo” usually means a complete reboot, a do-over. Slip op. at 4. But the court delved a bit deeper, because the term is used in the Code in the context of an administrative appeal, and in other similar non-eminent domain contexts the court has concluded that “de novo” does not mean a new hearing, but a more limited form of judicial review.
Ultimately, however, the court fell back to the canon of construction that eminent domain statutes because they are in “derogation of the common law rights to property” must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner and against the condemnor. The court also held — and here’s the good part — that property is “inviolable” and the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, which means the property owner is entitled to demand a jury to determine compensation, just like in every other eminent domain action.
The last few pages of the short opinion are devoted to a salute to private property, “a central tenet of American life since before this country’s founding.” Slip op. at 6. “[P]rotecting the ownership of private property is woven into the fabric of our jurisprudence,” and a property owner has the right to have a jury determine compensation when a city or town takes property, just like in every other case.
Our thanks to Stephen Fink for the heads-up on this decision.
Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 90S04-1208-PL-450 (Ind. Apr. 11, 2013)