Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners, Board of Commissioners of Clark County, Indiana v. Dennis Dreyer and Margo Dreyer, as Co-Personal Reps. of the Estate of Margaret A. Dreyer

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Board of Commissioners of Clark County, Indiana John W. Mead C. Gregory Fifer Mead, Mead & Clark, P.C. Applegate Fifer Pulliam LLC Salem, Indiana Jeffersonville, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners R. Scott Lewis Jeffersonville, Indiana ______________________________________________________________________________ Sep 12 2013, 10:29 am In the Indiana Supreme Court _________________________________ No. 10S01-1308-PL-529 CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF AVIATION COMMISSIONERS, Appellant (Plaintiff), BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, INDIANA Appellant (Judgment Debtor), v. DENNIS DREYER AND MARGO DREYER, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET A. DREYER, Appellees (Defendants). _________________________________ Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, No. 10C02-0902-PL-23 The Honorable Jerome F. Jacobi, Judge _________________________________ On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 10A01-1206-PL-288 _________________________________ September 12, 2013 Dickson, Chief Justice. We grant transfer in an effort to dispel confusion resulting from inartful language in one of our previous opinions. In this eminent domain case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the property owners and against the Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners. Full factual and procedural details are provided in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Aviation Comm'rs v. Dreyer, 986 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In its appellate challenge to the trial court judgment, the Board argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the property owner failed to timely file exceptions to the report filed by the court-appointed appraisers. This argument was predicated on language we included in State v. Universal Outdoor, Inc., stating: "the failure to file exceptions within the articulated time frame deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the issue of damages." 880 N.E.2d 1188, 1190 (Ind. 2008). In rejecting the Board's argument in the present case, the Court of Appeals concluded that this quoted passage from Universal Outdoor "is misleading," and explained: "To be sure if statu- tory procedures are not followed, the trial court may not be permitted to hear the issue of damag- es; however, this is not because the trial court lost jurisdiction, but rather, because legal error was committed." Dreyer, 986 N.E.2d at 291. The Court of Appeals is correct. Instead of declaring that the trial court "lacked subject matter jurisdiction," our opinion in Universal Outdoor should have expressed that the untimely filing of exemptions operated to preclude or foreclose the prop- erty owner from challenging the filed report. This was not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2). Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.