Alan Pahl v. Lake County Plan Commission, Katherine J. McIntosh, William L. Corns, Teresa Corns, Joseph Vicari, Jason Zimmer, and Jill Zimmer (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing
Nov 20 2020, 7:56 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Kevin E. Werner Alfredo Estrada
Crown Point, Indiana Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP
Merrillville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Alan Pahl, November 20, 2020
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-PL-1107
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Lake County Plan Commission, The Honorable Stephen Scheele,
Katherine J. McIntosh, William Judge
L. Corns, Teresa Corns, Joseph Trial Court Cause No.
Vicari, Jason Zimmer, and Jill 45D05-1909-PL-553
Zimmer
Appellees-Defendants.
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-01107| November 20, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] On September 13, 2019, Alan Pahl filed a complaint for declaratory relief,
naming the Lake County Plan Commission (“Plan Commission”) among other
interested individuals as defendants. Pahl requested that the court declare the
subdivision, of which his parcel is a part, void for lack of a proper drainage
plan. The Appellees argued both below and on appeal that Pahl’s lawsuit
should be dismissed because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
The trial court agreed and dismissed Pahl’s claims with prejudice. Pahl filed a
motion to correct error, which the trial court subsequently denied. Pahl claims
that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to correct error.
Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Pahl’s property is one lot within a five-lot plat located on Austin Street, in
Lowell. Pahl’s lot, along with the other four lots, are geographically located in
the subdivision commonly referred to as Westerhoff Acres. Westerhoff Acres
has been zoned as R-1 single-family residence since it was established in 1995.
Prior to the tract’s rezoning and subdivision in 1995, it was zoned for
agricultural use. The Pahls purchased their lot in 2006. For the first few years
of their ownership, Mrs. Pahl raised animals on the property, including ducks,
alpacas, chickens, rabbits, and miniature horses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-01107| November 20, 2020 Page 2 of 4
[3] Eventually, a neighbor complained about the animals. In October of 2009,
Pahl received a letter from the Plan Commission informing them that they were
in violation of county subdivision ordinances. Over the next few years, the
Pahls pursued various legal claims, presumably in order to legally keep their
desired animals on their property; however, none were successful.
[4] The case at bar began on September 13, 2019, when Pahl filed a complaint for
declaratory relief, pleading that because the trial court declared that there was
never a proper drainage plan established for Westerhoff Acres, the Plan
Commission’s recommendation for the approval of the subdivision was voided.
The trial court dismissed Pahl’s case with prejudice, and later denied Pahl’s
motion to correct error.
Discussion and Decision
[5] A review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct error is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Hawkins v. Cannon, 826 N.E.2d 658, 661 (Ind. Ct. app. 2005),
trans denied. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision was
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court
or if the trial court misapplied the law. Supervised Estate of Williamson v.
Williamson, 798 N.E.2d 238, 241 (Ind. Ct. App 2003). Moreover, an abuse of
discretion will be found only when the trial court’s judgment is clearly
erroneous. Sanders v. Sanders, 2015 N.E.3d 1102, 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-01107| November 20, 2020 Page 3 of 4
[6] “It is well-established that, if an administrative remedy is available, it must be
pursued before a claimant is allowed access to the courts.” Town Council of New
Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217, 1224 (Ind. 2000). Indiana Code section
36-7-4-711 states that “[t]he plan commission (or plat committee acting on its
behalf) . . . has exclusive control over the vacation of plats or parts of plats[,]”
and the statute makes no exceptions for this procedure due to the lack or
deficiency of a drainage plan. Moreover, a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies creates a defect in subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court. D.A.Y.
Inv. LLC v. Lake C132., 106 N.E.3d 500, 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Because Pahl
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, i.e., to bring his claim before the
Plan Commission before filing suit in the trial court, the trial court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and, as such, the trial court was
bound to dismiss the case.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-01107| November 20, 2020 Page 4 of 4