STATE v. BL FURRER LAND HOLDINGS LLC (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The State appeals the trial court's order denying the State's motion to strike BL Furrer Land Holdings, LLC's answer and objections to the State's complaint for appropriation of real property owned by BL Furrer.¹ We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November 2023, the State, on behalf of the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), filed its complaint for appropriation of real property owned by BL Furrer. According to the State's complaint, the State had attempted to purchase BL Furrer's property from BL Furrer in connection with a road-improvement project, but the parties were unable to come to a purchase agreement. The State therefore sought to acquire the property by way of eminent domain. The State's complaint particularly described the property at issue.

[3] BL Furrer filed an answer and objections to the State's complaint. In its answer and objections, BL Furrer alleged that the State had not engaged in good-faith and similar negotiations prior to filing its complaint. BL Furrer asserted that this constituted the failure of a “condition precedent” to the State's ability to file its complaint. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 23-24. BL Furrer then asked the trial court to “deny Plaintiff's Complaint[ ] until Plaintiff complies with the statutory condition[ ] precedent ․” Id. at 24.

[4] The State moved to strike BL Furrer's answer and objections. The trial court denied the State's motion to strike, granted BL Furrer's objections, and appears to have dismissed the State's complaint, although that is not entirely clear. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] We initially note that the trial court's action on the State's complaint is not entirely clear. It appears that the trial court may have dismissed the State's complaint, from which the State now appeals. It further appears that the trial court's rationale for doing so was for the purported failure to comply with a condition precedent to filing a complaint for the appropriation of real property. We interpret that to mean that the trial court concluded that the State's complaint failed to state a claim under Trial Rule 12(B)(6), which we review de novo.

[6] The trial court's judgment was incorrect. Indiana Code section 32-24-1-13(a) (2023) expressly states that INDOT “in its action for condemnation is not required to prove that an offer of purchase was made to the property owner ․” Our Supreme Court has expressly held that that statute “exempts” INDOT from having to “prove that it made a good-faith offer to purchase the property prior to filing suit.” Burd Management, LLC v. State, 831 N.E.2d 104, 105 (Ind. 2005). And, in any event, the State's complaint does state that it made a written acquisition offer to BL Furrer.

[7] Further, we agree with the State that BL Furrer's purported objections go to the compensation to which BL Furrer may be entitled due to the taking, not to the trial court's jurisdiction or the State's authority to take the property. As our case law makes clear:

Condemnation proceedings “involve two stages and are summary in nature until the question of damages is reached.” State ex rel. Bd. of Aviation Comm'rs of City of Warsaw v. Kosciusko Cnty. Superior Ct., 430 N.E.2d 754, 755 (Ind. 1982). In the first stage, eminent domain proceedings are initiated by a would-be condemnor filing a complaint in the trial court. Ind. Code § 32-24-1-4(a). The property owner may then file objections to the condemnation proceedings within thirty days from the date it receives notice of the action. I.C. § 32-24-1-8(b)․ The property owner may object based on the following: lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction; lack of authority “to exercise the power of eminent domain for the use sought;” or “for any other reason disclosed in the complaint or set up in the objections.” I.C. § 32-24-1-8(a).

During this “initial or summary phase of the [condemnation] proceedings, the action consists solely of legal issues which are decided by the trial court.” Bd. of Aviation Comm'rs of City of Warsaw, 430 N.E.2d at 755. After considering “the legality of the action and any objections which may have been filed, the trial court concludes this phase of the proceedings by entering an order of appropriation and appointing appraisers to assess the damages.” Id. The action then moves into the second phase, where the fact-finder must determine the amount of damages sustained by the property owner. Id.

Bender Enterprises, LLC v. Duke Energy, LLC, 201 N.E.3d 206, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (alteration original to Bender; footnote omitted). BL Furrer's objections go to the second phase of the condemnation action. The trial court therefore erred in deciding them prior to that stage.

[8] For all of these reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[9] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   White County, also a named defendant, does not participate in this appeal.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.