Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Douglas R. Denmure Aurora, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG Joseph W. Votaw, III Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE LAWRENCEBURG CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Richard A. Butler Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA GAMING, L.P. Peter J. Rusthoven Jan M. Carroll E. Timothy DeLaney Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

In the

Apr 20 2010, 12:22 pm

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ 15S04-0907-CV-310 GLORIA A. MURRAY, ET AL.,

CLERK

Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, ET AL., Appellees (Defendants below). _________________________________ Interlocutory Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit Court, No. 15C01-0511-PL-75 The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 15A04-0803-CV-122 _________________________________ April 20, 2010 Boehm, Justice. We hold that inverse condemnation is the sole remedy for a governmental act that purports to exercise all rights of ownership over a parcel of land. We also hold that the six year

statute of limitations for trespass applies to such a claim. As a result, the statute of limitations bars the plaintiffs' suit in 2005 seeking to claim ownership of land leased in 1997 by the City of Lawrenceburg to a private party. Facts and Procedural History Because this is an appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we accept the allegations of the complaint as true. Plaintiffs claim ownership of a 0.768 acre parcel of land located within a 32.074 acre parcel in Lawrenceburg. The larger parcel serves as the Ohio River docking site of the Argosy Casino operated by Indiana Gaming Company, L.P. Plaintiffs claim to be successors in interest to the tenants in common who were grantees in an 1886 deed to the disputed parcel. Plaintiffs allege that from 1941 to 1995, the parcel had been labeled on the Lawrenceburg Flood Control District Land Acquisition Map as having an "unknown" owner, and during that time no one else had claimed or established ownership over the parcel. There is no allegation that any plaintiff asserted any rights in the property during that period. The complaint alleges the following other relevant facts. On December 28, 1995, the Lawrenceburg Conservancy District leased the 32.074 acre parcel to the City of Lawrenceburg. The lease warranted title except for the disputed parcel. On February 1, 1996, the Central Railroad Company of Indiana gave the City a quitclaim deed for those 0.768 acres accompanied by an affidavit stating that it obtained title to the parcel through an 1865 deed from the White Water Valley Canal Company. The City subleased the entire 32.074 acres, including the

disputed parcel, to Indiana Gaming on August 20, 1996, and Indiana Gaming began operations at the site in December 1997. On November 21, 2005, more than six but less than ten years after the lease to Indiana Gaming, plaintiffs filed this suit against the City, the Conservancy District, and Indiana Gaming. The suit sought to quiet title to the disputed parcel, eject the defendants, and set aside the quitclaim deed and the leases. It also requested compensation for lost rent under negligence and unjust enrichment theories. A jury trial was demanded.

2

Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(C), arguing that even if plaintiffs owned the parcel, their only cause of action was inverse condemnation which was barred by the six year statute of limitations for injury to real property. The trial court denied the motion but certified its order for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals did not accept that appeal, but later accepted this second interlocutory appeal by plaintiffs from the trial court's subsequent denial of their demand for a jury trial. Defendants cross-appealed, again seeking appellate review of the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals allowed defendants' cross-appeal to proceed, but rejected the merits of defendants' claim to judgment on the pleadings, ruling that plaintiffs "were not required to bring a claim for inverse condemnation, because inverse condemnation is not an exclusive remedy and because ownership of the Disputed Property has not yet been determined." plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial. Id. at 107

Download Gloria A. Murray, et al. v. The City of Lawrenceburg, et al..pdf

Indiana Law