Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Dec 31 2009, 10:13 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID M. AUSTGEN MICHAEL J. JASAITIS TIMOTHY R. KUIPER Austgen Kuiper & Associates, P.C. Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL L. MUENICH Highland, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA, Appellant-Defendant, vs. CEDAR LAKE VENTURES I, LLC, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 45A03-0906-CV-277

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John R. Pera, Judge Cause No. 45D10-0709-PL-154

December 31, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary The Town of Cedar Lake ("Town") and Cedar Lake Ventures I, LLC ("Landowner") disputed the existence of an easement along 133rd Avenue. After each sought summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Landowner. This dispute concerns whether the Town's action constituted consideration of a subdivision or a planned unit development ("PUD"). Concluding that the Town gave its conditional approval of a PUD, we hold that the Town's conditional approval expired by the terms of its own ordinance. We therefore affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Landowner. Issue The Town raises five issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the Landowner. Facts and Procedural History The relevant facts are not in dispute. Christopher, Helen, and Kenneth McAllister owned land in the Town and ultimately sold it to the Landowner in 2006. Central to this dispute was the McAllisters' effort to develop their land. Their plan was evidenced by a large document that contained both a scaled map of a proposed development on 133rd Avenue, as well as certain written, signed, and notarized assertions (the "Instrument"). The Instrument was titled, LINCOLN PLAZA WEST A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN

2

CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA Appendix at 37. The Instrument contained a "LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF P.U.D." Id. In one corner, the Instrument was labeled, "FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAT." Id. The Instrument's map depicted eight lots, only one of which was contiguous to 133rd Avenue

Download Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana v. Cedar Lake Ventures I, LLC.pdf

Indiana Law