We're posting the Indiana Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Hoagland Family Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Clear Lake, No. 18A-PL-2088 (Aug. 28, 2019) not because it says much about eminent domain law, but more because (1) we commented on the case last time it was before the court, and (2) it's kind of funny.
From what we can read between the lines, the case probably involved one of those dudes who makes local municipal officials roll their eyes when he shows up. The genesis of the long-running litigation is that the Town wants Mr. Hoagland to connect his house to the municipal sewer system, and stop using his own septic system.
We'll let you read the relatively short opinion for the details, but why we're posting it is the court's use of more than a few evocative words which tell you what the judges really thought of this case. See above for the opening "lede." We like toilet puns. It doesn't plug up there. "Things did not go smoothly on remand," the court tells us, for example.
This same court exhibited the same opinion writing cheek in its 2017 decision::
This type of litigation tends to clog up the court system. Our courts are not flush with resources, and they are prone to getting backed up. When the system gets backed up, it produces unnecessary and unhealthy strains, which makes it more difficult for parties to obtain relief. And when these cases cannot be discharged, it is impossible for our court system to stay regular—and that means taxpayer resources down the drain. We can understand that, after such a long process, the parties are not overflowing with goodwill. But we hope that, before the case stalls and stagnates, they can put this big mess behind them.
If you want the eminent domain hook, here it is: Mr. H told the Town that if it wanted to install the sewer infrastructure on his property itself, it certainly could do so, but only if it first condemned and paid for an easement. The Town didn't want to, and the case spiraled downwards from there, with increasing fines, attorneys fee awards, and what looks like an ordinance that was targeted at undermining Mr. H's insistence on the Town recognizing his rights. The lower court ok'd it, but the Court of Appeals did not: Mr. H wins every major issue.
The opinion finishes up with the note that "[o]n remand, we order that both parties proceed in good faith through that process [an application by Mr. H for sewer connection permits] so that this issue can finally be laid to rest." Slip op. at 17.
Hoagland Family Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Clear Lake, No. 18A-PL-2088 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2019)
