Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Joseph W. Hammes Tabbert Hahn Earnest & Weddle, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana Karl L. Mulvaney Nana Quay-Smith Candace L. Sage Bingham McHale, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steve Carter Attorney General of Indiana David L. Steiner Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 49S02-0411-CV-476 BURD MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D12-210-PL-1827 The Honorable Robyn Moberly, Judge _________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-307-CV-572 _________________________________ June 28, 2005 Sullivan, Justice.

A property owner whose land is being taken for a highway project argues that the state transportation department must, to prevail in condemnation proceedings, prove that it made a good-faith offer to purchase the property prior to filing suit. We hold that Indiana Code Section

32-24-1-13(a) exempts the transportation department from any such requirement, thereby overruling Decker v. State, 426 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).

Background

The Indiana Department of Transportation ("INDOT") is in the process of improving public highway U.S. 36 in Marion County, also known as Pendleton Pike. Burd Management, LLC ("Burd"), owns real estate in Marion County adjacent to Pendleton Pike. INDOT determined that it needed to appropriate part of Burd's real estate for the public purpose of improving the highway. The State obtained two appraisals for the real estate. Based on those appraisals, the State, through INDOT, presented a Uniform Land Acquisition Offer to purchase Burd's real estate for $57,950. Burd rejected the offer, and the State initiated a condemnation action. Burd filed objections to the appropriation proceedings, claiming that: (1) the State failed to comply with the procedures for appropriating Burd's real estate; (2) the State failed to make a good-faith offer or effort to purchase Burd's property; and (3) the State improperly alleged in its Complaint that its highway improvement project benefits Burd's remaining property after the condemnation. Burd also served the State with discovery requests. The State objected to all requests, except one interrogatory and one admission, and filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of a good-faith offer requirement. Burd then filed a motion to compel responses to its discovery requests.

The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, determining that the State was not required to prove that an offer to purchase was made prior to filing the condemnation action. The trial court also denied Burd's motion to compel discovery requests and issued a protective order shielding the State's appraisals from discovery.

The Court of Appeals, finding that the State was required to make a good-faith offer, reversed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the State and remanded this case to the trial court with instructions to determine whether a good-faith offer had been made by the State for all of the land appropriated from Burd. The State petitioned to, and we granted, transfer. Burd Management v. State, 822 N.E.2d 981 (2004) (mem.).

2

Discussion

I

The central issue before this Court is whether there is a conflict between two statutes governing the condemnation of property in Indiana. The first statute, which Burd argues is controlling, provides:

As a condition precedent to filing a complaint in condemnation, . . . a condemnor may enter upon the property as provided in this chapter and must, at least thirty (30) days before filing a complaint, make an offer to purchase the property in the form prescribed in subsection (c). Ind. Code

Download Burd Management v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law