Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT John M. Sedia Highland, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES DORDIESKI & BRUSKOSKI James L. Clement, Jr. Merrillville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE LAKE COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION George C. Patrick Scott A. Pyle Crown Point, Indiana

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 45S05-0606-CV-223 SUSAN KOZLOWSKI, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. DORDIJA DORDIESKI, LANA DORDIESKI, JON BRUSKOSKI, LIBERTY BRUSKOSKI, LAKE COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION, Appellees (Defendants below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Lake Circuit Court, No. 45C01-0108-CP-859 The Honorable Lorenzo Arrendondo, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A05-0502-CV-86 _________________________________ June 22, 2006 Shepard, Chief Justice.

A remonstrator to a real estate development sought judicial relief. She prevailed in the Court of Appeals, which remanded for further proceedings. She then sought injunctive relief in a

1

different court, which granted summary judgment against her on grounds that it "lacked subject matter jurisdiction." Actually, the second court did have subject matter jurisdiction, but was right to grant judgment because the same matter was pending in the court where the first action had been heard.

Facts and Procedural History

In 1992, Dordija and Lana Dordieski and Jon and Liberty Bruskoski ("Dordieski") petitioned the Lake County Plan Commission for approval of a subdivision and a waiver of certain subdivision ordinance requirements. The Commission approved the subdivision and the waiver. Susan Kozlowski filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Lake Superior Court Room Five, challenging the Commission's decision. Over the next eight years, Dordieski made various improvements to the real estate that complied with the Commission's approval and waiver, but not with certain aspects of the subdivision ordinance. On May 19, 2000, the Lake Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision and denied Kozlowski's petition for stay of work.

The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that "[t]he Commission's decision . . . appears to be based solely on `unspoken and unpresented facts not contained in the record,' . . . and therefore is not supported by substantial evidence of probative value. We accordingly reverse and remand to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Kozlowski v. Lake County Plan Commission, No. 45A05-0006-CV-253, slip op. at 5 (Ind. Ct. App. January 30, 2001) trans. not sought.

Later in 2001, Kozlowski filed a complaint for injunctive relief seeking demolition of the improvements and an injunction against any further work, this time in Lake Circuit Court. The Plan Commission intervened, and in April 2003 filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in both the Circuit Court and Superior Court Room Five. The Circuit Court granted the Commission summary judgment, stating that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction, but rather Lake Superior Court Room Five did. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, holding that "the trial court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

2

over these proceedings." Kozlowski v. Dordieski, No. 45A05-0502-CV-86, slip op. at 7-8 (Ind. Ct. App. July 26, 2005). These decisions got to the right place, but "subject matter jurisdiction" was not the right reason.

Action Pending Elsewhere

The Lake Circuit Court certainly possessed subject matter jurisdiction (the power to hear the class of disputes to which the one in question belonged). "The circuit court has original jurisdiction in all civil cases and in all criminal cases, except where exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by law upon other courts of the same territorial jurisdiction." IND. CODE ANN.

Download Sue Kozlowski v. Dordija Dordieski, et al.pdf

Indiana Law