Case Title: 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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 10S01-1308-PL-529

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2013-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
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 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
Sep 12 2013, 10:29 am
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.