Leonard Dewitt v. Unsafe Building Department, City of Greendale, Indiana, Doug Hedrick ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 03 2012, 9:43 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. tax court
APPELLANT PRO-SE: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
LEONARD DEWITT RICHARD A. BUTLER
Greencastle, Indiana Lawrenceburg, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
LEONARD DEWITT, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A04-1110-MI-567
)
UNSAFE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, )
CITY OF GREENDALE, INDIANA, )
DOUG HEDRICK, et al., )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Judge
Cause No. 15C01-1101-MI-2
July 3, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Appellant-plaintiff Leonard Dewitt appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his action
for inverse condemnation in favor of appellees-defendants Unsafe Building Department
City of Greendale (Unsafe Building Department), Doug Hedrick, et al. (collectively, the
defendants), claiming that the trial court improperly dismissed the complaint because it
lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Specifically, Dewitt argues that the trial court
erroneously concluded that his failure to appeal the order entered by the Unsafe Building
Department within ten days as set forth in Indiana Code section 37-7-9-8, bars his action.
Concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Dewitt’s complaint because he did
not timely appeal the Unsafe Building Department’s decision, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
FACTS
On August 24, 2005, the Chief Enforcement Officer (Officer) of the Unsafe
Building Department issued an order declaring Dewitt’s house unsafe, and ordered him to
remove it from the real estate within ninety days. The order declared that Dewitt’s
residence was in “an impaired structural condition,” was a fire hazard, and a threat to
public health. Appellant’s App. p. 9. The Officer also set a hearing on the matter for
September 14, 2005.
The Hearing Authority of the Unsafe Building Department unanimously affirmed
the order on September 14, 2005. The record shows that Dewitt neither complied with,
nor appealed this order. Thereafter, on May 3, 2006, the Unsafe Building Department
demolished the house and removed it from Dewitt’s real estate.
2
On December 13, 2006 the Unsafe Building Department requested the amounts it
had expended in removing the house from the property. Dewitt filed a petition objecting
to the claim for payment, but the trial court denied Dewitt’s petition. Thereafter, the trial
court granted the City of Greendale a judgment for its costs in the amount of $2892, on
August 22, 2007. The trial court then issued a Writ of Attachment and Execution and
Dewitt’s property was sold to satisfy the City’s costs of demolition and removal.
On January 10, 2011, Dewitt filed a complaint in the trial court, entitled “Civil
Action for Inverse Condemnation,” attacking Unsafe Building Department’s actions. The
trial court dismissed Dewitt’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction in light of Dewitt’s
failure to appeal the Unsafe Building Department’s decision within the ten days as
required by Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8. More specifically, the trial court’s order
provided in relevant part that
This matter having come before the Court this 27th day of September, 2011
and the Plaintiff having appeared in person and the Defendant having
appeared by counsel, Richard A. Butler, and the Court being duly and
sufficiently advised, the Court now FINDS that:
(1) This cause of action is for inverse condemnation.
(2) Plaintiff previously filed another action for inverse condemnation
before this Court under Cause No. 15C01-1003-MI-0013. In that case, this
Court found that “Plaintiff filed a similar complaint against the same
Defendants in the United State District Court, Southern District of Indiana
under Cause NO. 2:07-cv-204-RLY-GH and a final judgment as previously
rendered upon all claims in that action making it res judicata with respect to
the present proposed complaint.”
3
(3) Further, Ind. Code §36-7-9-8 requires that any appeal of the action of
the Defendant Unsafe Building Department of the City of Greendale of
which Plaintiff complains in this cause of action be taken “within ten (10)
days after the date when the action was taken.” Defendant Unsafe Building
Department of the City of Greendale having taken the action complained of
by Plaintiff in this cause of action on or about May 3, 2006 (according to
Plaintiff’s complaint), this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear
Plaintiff's complaint. Quaker Properties, Inc. v. Department of Unsafe
Buildings of the City of Greendale, Indiana, 842 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. App.
2006).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
Plaintiff's complaint be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice.
Appellees’ App. p. 1-2. Dewitt now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
In determining whether the trial court erred in dismissing Dewitt’s complaint, we
note that a party may not collaterally attack the lawful actions of a municipality pursuant
to the Unsafe Building Law. Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 659 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1996). “Where a statute sets forth a specific time period for filing an appeal from
an administrative decision, one must timely file the appeal in order to invoke the
jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 1136.
Relevant here is Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8, which provides that
(a) An action taken under section 7(d) of this chapter is subject to review by
the circuit or superior court of the county in which the unsafe premises are
located, on request of:
(1) any person who has a substantial property interest in the unsafe
premises; or
(2) any person to whom that order was issued.
4
(b) A person requesting judicial review under this section must file a
verified complaint including the findings of fact and the action taken by the
hearing authority. The complaint must be filed within ten (10) days after
the date when the action was taken.
(c) An appeal under this section is an action de novo. The court may affirm,
modify, or reverse the action taken by the hearing authority.
(Emphasis added).
Once the time period for filing an appeal has expired, the hearing authority’s
decision may not be challenged in a collateral proceeding. In Starzenski, no appeal was
filed under Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8 within the required ten days. Rather, more
than three months after the hearing authority’s decision, the Starzenskis sought an
injunction that prohibited the City of Elkhart from taking action to clean up the
Starzenskis’ property.
A panel of this court recognized that the Starzenskis were trying to avoid the
provisions of the Unsafe Building Law. More particularly, it was observed that “[the
Starzenskis] seek to circumvent the statutory requirements governing appeals from the
Hearing Authority by seeking an injunction against the City in a collateral proceeding
brought in the Elkhart Superior Court.” Id. at 1136-37. Failing to appeal within the
requisite time period waives the challenge to the hearing authority’s decision. Id. at
1137.
As set forth in Starzenski:
[T]he Hearing Authority took action on the Starzenskis’s case at the
conclusion of the October 29, 1992 hearing when it affirmed the
Enforcement Authority’s order. The Starzenskis failed to appeal from that
5
action within the requisite time period. The Starzenskis have waived their
challenge to the Hearing Authority’s decision and the Enforcement
Authority’s order, and the opportunity to have the court conduct a de novo
review of the evidence under I.C. 36-7-9-8.
Id.As were the circumstances in Starzenski, Dewitt did not appeal the order pursuant
to Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8. Rather, it is apparent that Dewitt sought to circumvent
the statutory requirements governing appeals from the Unsafe Building Department’s
orders by filing a complaint for inverse condemnation and multiple violations of his civil
rights in a collateral proceeding. The ten-day appeal period began to run on September
14, 2005, when the Hearing Authority affirmed the Chief Enforcement Office’s order.
Dewitt failed to timely appeal that action.
Likewise, although Dewitt challenged the Unsafe Building Department’s request
for costs of removing the residence, he was unsuccessful in doing so. Dewitt filed this
collateral action on January 10, 2011—more than five years after the ten-day appeal
period. All of the issues could have and should have been raised in a timely appeal of
the Hearing Authority’s decisions pursuant to Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8. Because
Dewitt did not appeal that decision in a timely manner, he has waived his challenge to the
Hearing Authority’s decision and the Enforcement Authority’s order. As a result, we
conclude that the trial court properly dismissed Dewitt’s complaint.1
1
As an aside, we note that even if the ten-day period in accordance with Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8
had not run when Dewitt filed the action for inverse condemnation, he was still precluded from
challenging the Unsafe Building Department’s action in a collateral proceeding. His avenue of recourse
6
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
would be to file a verified complaint in the trial court pursuant to Indiana Code section 36-7-9-8.
Starzenski, 659 N.E.2d at 1137 n.10.
7