Title: Fagan v. ROYER

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

244 Ind. 377 (1963)
193 N.E.2d 64
FAGAN
v.
ROYER ET AL.
No. 30,113.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed October 10, 1963.
Paul Reed, of Knox and Thomas Essex, of Winamac, for appellant.
JACKSON, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court in a drainage proceedings. A petition for drainage filed in the Pulaski Circuit Court instituted the action. On March 16, 1960, the court appointed the county Surveyor, A.M. Van Meter, as engineer and also appointed two men, Lee Sommers and Ernest Daily, to act as viewers. The report of the engineer and viewers was favorable to the proposed drainage project, and included the character of *378 the work, the estimated costs and benefits, and a schedule of assessments.
Remonstrances were filed and hearings had thereon, following which the Surveyor filed a supplemental report in which he overruled the objections or remonstrances of Ruth M. Brown and James W. Martin, deleted from the proceedings certain lands of Arnold Bonnell and Florine Bonnell, and increased the acreage and assessment, with their consent, of Vincent Jones and Alma Jones, and added to the assessment and benefit roles of the project and lands of Cris Frazier and Hazel Frazier. The supplemental report contains the statement:
On May 4, 1960, James W. Fagan filed his remonstrance to the "Report of Viewers and Engineer and the County Surveyor," and to the "Surveyor's Supplemental Report," such remonstrance alleging in substance:
1. That remonstrator is the owner of certain lands therein designated.
2. That his land is affected by the proposed drainage project although the same does not appear on the list of owners and lands, exhibit D with said "Report of Viewers, etc."
3. That the petition originally filed prays construction of a new drainage system including "`that said open ditch be so constructed as to deepen the same *379 by at least two feet,' as appears in rhetorical paragraph No. 5 thereon; that the reports to which this remonstrance is directed do not propose to comply with said petition as to the item specified herein...."
4. That the present system of drainage is inadequate in the following particulars:
a. That it fails to drain away excess rainfall, resulting in extensive crop losses to this petitioner and others;
b. That it requires frequent repair because its banks regularly cave in;
c. That it is progressively damaging a county road along the north side of Section 11 because of bank caving in;
d. That its failure to drain away excessive rainfall has regularly resulted in backing up and standing water in the basement of the home of said Thomas A. Fagan on the lands hereinabove described.
5. That prior to a dozen years ago or more the present drainage system followed a different course from the present course below the outlet of the tile which drains remonstrator's lands, and prior to said change the lands of this remonstrator were properly and adequately drained.
6. That said reports are defective in that they fail to provide for adequate and proper drainage below the outlet of remonstrator's lands.
7. That it will not be practicable to accomplish the proposed drainage without an expense exceeding the aggregate benefits as assessed.
8. That the proposed work will neither improve the public health, be of public utility, nor benefit any public highway.
*380 Thereafter, on May 5, 1960, said remonstrant filed an amended remonstrance to the proposed project which alleges:
Another remonstrance was filed by Thomas A. Fagan and nine other persons to the "Report of Viewers etc." and to the "Surveyor's Supplemental Report."
Trial was had to the court on the remonstrances resulting in a finding "for the remonstrators on their respective remonstrances that the report of the Engineer and Viewers is not according to law and should be referred back for correction or amendment." Accordingly the report was referred back and the Engineer and Viewers were directed to file their new or amended report by Monday, September 12, 1960.
*382 On October 4, 1960, the Engineer and Viewers filed their amended report, including therein appellant's land and assessing the sum of $5,640.00 against such lands.
To the amended report appellant, on October 18, 1960, filed a verified motion to strike; the motion was sustained; the amended report filed on October 4, 1960, was stricken and time to file the amended report ordered filed on September 12, 1960, was extended to November 10, 1960.
On November 10, 1960, the Engineer and Viewers refiled their amended report. To this amended report appellant again remonstrated. Trial was thereafter had to the court on this remonstrance, resulting in a finding and judgment by the court on December 30, 1960, that the report be referred back to the Engineer and Viewers for the preparation and filing of an amended report providing changes in specifications, profile and certain assessments. The court fixed the time for the filing of such amended report as on or before January 10, 1961.
On January 10, 1961, the Engineer filed what purports to be the Engineer and Viewers newly amended or second amended report herein.
To the purported newly amended report the appellant filed a remonstrance on January 18, 1961, alleging therein:
Trial was had to the court on the issues raised by the remonstrance resulting in a finding and judgment against the appellant, that he "take nothing by his remonstrance herein, and that the costs occasioned by *385 the remonstrance of James Fagan, remonstrator, be and they are taxed to said remonstrator...."
Thereafter appellant filed a motion for a new trial, the grounds therefor, omitting formal parts and Exhibit "A," being:
The motion for new trial was overruled and new trial denied on March 30, 1961.
Appellant assigns as error the sole specification,
We point out that the only brief filed in this appeal is that of the appellant, Fagan. The rule in Indiana *387 on this point is that appellees' failure to file a brief is considered to be a confession of the errors complained of by the appellant, and the cause may be reversed. However, this rule should only be invoked where appellant's brief makes a prima facie showing of error. Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N.E.2d 343; Huffman v. Huffman (1947), 117 Ind. App. 601, 75 N.E.2d 172.
Appellant predicates error in the method used by the engineer and viewers to apportion the costs and benefits of the proposed drainage project. The statutory scheme of apportionment is as follows:
It is quite apparent from the record and from appellant's brief that there was no attempt made to ascertain whether the benefits to appellant's land were in excess of the assessments made against his land and, hence, it is clear that the assessments made in the case at bar were not made in conformity to the statute. § 27-134, Burns' 1960 Replacement, supra.
The appellant having made a prima facie case, under the rule, the appellee's failure to file a brief is considered to be a confession of the errors complained of by the appellant.
*388 On the question of the burden of proof as to whether the assessments exceed the benefits, we have previously stated:
In the case at bar the appellant presented a legal objection that the costs would exceed the benefits over the whole work, the burden of proving otherwise was upon the petitioners (appellees). This burden appellees have failed to sustain.
The cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for a new trial and for such other proceedings as are consistent with this opinion.
Myers, C.J., and Landis, J., concur; Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur in result.
NOTE.  Reported in 193 N.E.2d 64.