Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 1 of 40

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS

Matthew T. Albaugh

Shawn M. Doorhy

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

TOWN OF LONG BEACH,

INDIANA1

L. Charles Lukmann, III

Charles F.G. Parkinson

Julie A. Paulson

Connor H. Nolan

Harris Welsh & Lukmann

Chesterton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

LONG BEACH COMMUNITY 

ALLIANCE, INC.

Kurt R. Earnst

Braje, Nelson & Janes, LLP

Michigan City, Indiana

Patricia F. Sharkey

Environmental Law Counsel, 

P.C.

Chicago, Illinois

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

JAMES NEULIEB

Gregory S. Colton

Law Office of Gregory S. Colton

Valparaiso, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE,

INDIANA ASSOCIATION OF CITIES 

AND TOWNS AND 

 

1 The attorneys identified as counsel for Town of Long Beach, Indiana also represent the Town Council, 

Building Commission, Advisory Plan Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, and the following people in 

their respective official capacities: Jane Starr Neulieb, Peter Byvoets, Robert Lemay, Larry Wall, John Wall, 

Joseph Jogmen, Patrick Cannon, Michael Gorman, and Aaron Tomsheck.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 2 of 40

INDIANA MUNICIPAL LAWYERS 

ASSOCIATION

Brian W. Welch

Melissa J. Buckley

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE 

CONSERVATION LAW CENTER

Jeffrey B. Hyman

Conservation Law Center

Bloomington, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John C. & Maureen G. Osborne 

Revocable Family Trust; 

Timothy J. and Anna Voortman; 

Christopher Lyons; and 

Duneland Development, LLC,

Appellants/Cross-Appellees-Plaintiffs,

v.

The Town of Long Beach, 

Indiana; The Long Beach, 

Indiana Town Council; The 

Building Commission of the 

Town of Long Beach, Indiana; 

The Advisory Plan Commission 

May 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

46A03-1607-PL-16983

Appeal from the

LaPorte Superior Court

The Honorable 

Richard R. Stalbrink, Jr., Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46D02-1602-PL-204

 

3 This appeal was consolidated with Case No. 46A03-1607-PL-1725, a separate appeal filed by The Long 

Beach Community Alliance, Inc. and James Neulieb. Following consolidation, this court directed that The 

Long Beach Community Alliance and Neulieb would be considered appellees/cross-appellants for purposes 

of the appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 3 of 40

of the Town of Long Beach; The 

Board of Zoning Appeals of the 

The Town of Long Beach, 

Indiana; Jane Starr Neulieb; 

Peter Byvoets; Robert Lemay; 

Larry Wall; John Wall; Joseph 

Jogmen; Patrick Cannon; 

Michael Gorman; and Aaron 

Tomsheck, all in their official 

capacities as members of the 

Long Beach, Indiana Town 

Council, Advisory Plan 

Commission, Board of Zoning 

Appeals, Building Commission, 

and Building Commissioner,2

Appellees/Cross-AppellantsDefendants,

and

The Long Beach Community 

Alliance, Inc., an Indiana notfor-profit corporation; and 

James Neulieb, an Individual,

Appellees/Cross-AppellantsDefendants.

Kirsch, Judge.

 

2 Town of Long Beach, its Town Council, its Building Commission, and office of Building Commissioner 

filed a Notice of Succession in Office and a Motion to Substitute Party pursuant to Appellate Rule 17(C). 

This court accepted the Notice and granted the Motion, ordering that Larry Wall replaced Aaron Tomsheck 

as the Building Commissioner and as an Appellee in this case. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 4 of 40

[1] John C. & Maureen G. Osborne Revocable Family Trust, Timothy J. & Anna 

Voortman, and Christopher Lyons (together, “Homeowners”) each own a 

residence along the Lake Michigan shoreline in Long Beach, Indiana. Each 

Homeowner sought to construct a seawall due to concern about a possible 

breach of their respective septic systems by Lake Michigan waters. After 

building permits were issued to Homeowners for the seawalls, The Long Beach 

Community Alliance, Inc. (“LBCA”)4 and James Neulieb5(“Neulieb”) each 

filed an administrative appeal of the building permits with the Board of Zoning 

Appeals of the Town of Long Beach (“BZA”), and, thereafter, stop work orders 

were issued, which prevented construction on the seawalls from proceeding. 

Homeowners and their contractor, Duneland Development, LLC (“Duneland” 

and, together with Homeowners, “Plaintiff Owners”) filed in the trial court a

twelve-count complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (“the Complaint”) 

against The Town of Long Beach, Indiana, the Town Council, the Building 

Commission, the Advisory Plan Commission, the BZA, certain individuals in 

their official capacities as members of the aforementioned municipal entities 

(collectively, “Town Defendants”), as well as LBCA and Neulieb. Thereafter, 

the Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb each filed a motion to dismiss, 

 

4 LBCA describes itself as “a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit community organization, representing over 400 families 

who live and/or own homes in the Town of Long Beach, including some who own property on the lakefront 

and/or in close proximity to the proposed seawall locations. LBCA’s mission includes preserving the 

character of the Lake Michigan shore in the Town of Long Beach, on behalf of its members.” LBCA Br. at 

22. 

5

James Neulieb is member of and provides financial support to the LBCA; his wife, Jane Starr Neulieb, also 

a named defendant, is a member of the Long Beach Town Council. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 5 of 40

which the trial court denied by orders on April 8 and April 19, 2016 (together, 

“the April Orders”). On July 5, 2016, the trial court issued an “Order Denying 

[Plaintiff Owners’] Motions for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment”

(“the July 5 Order”). 

[2] On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff Owners filed, pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 

14(A) or 14(D), an appeal as of right of the July 5 Order, which Plaintiff 

Owners view as an interlocutory order. On or near the same time, LBCA and 

Neulieb, who view the July 5 Order as a final order that disposed of all claims, 

filed an appeal of the April 19 Order that denied their respective motions to 

dismiss. This court consolidated LBCA’s and Neulieb’s appeal with Plaintiff

Owners’ appeal.6 

[3] Numerous issues are raised by the consolidated appeal. We first address the 

following preliminary issue:

I. Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the 

cross-appeal issues raised by appellees LBCA, Neulieb, and 

Town of Long Beach concerning the trial court’s denial of their 

respective motions to dismiss in the April Orders.

We next address the following dispositive cross-appeal issue:

 

6

Following consolidation, Plaintiff Owners filed a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by LBCA and Neulieb, 

and LBCA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Plaintiff Owners. LBCA and Neulieb also filed a 

motion for a temporary stay of appellate proceedings and remand for limited purpose. This court denied 

both of the motions to dismiss, and it denied the motion for stay of proceedings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 6 of 40

II. Whether the trial court erred when it denied the motions to 

dismiss filed, separately, by Town Defendants, LBCA, and 

Neulieb, each of which asserted that the trial court lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust 

their administrative remedies. 

[4] We reverse the trial court’s April 8 Order that denied the motions to dismiss 

filed by Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb. 

Facts and Procedural History

[5] This litigation stems from Homeowners’ desire to build a seawall on each of 

their respective lakefront residential lots, which are located on Lake Shore 

Drive in the Town of Long Beach, at the southern shore of Lake Michigan.7 

Homeowners maintain that storms and waves have damaged their properties 

and have put their septic systems in imminent peril of being breached; they 

assert that construction of the seawalls is necessary to avoid discharge of septic 

contents onto the beach and into Lake Michigan and to protect their properties. 

Homeowners also claim that, without the seawalls, their homes could be 

damaged to the point of being uninhabitable, and no new septic field could be 

constructed given the size of their lots. Before applying for building permits, 

the Homeowners filed applications in May and July, 2015 with the BZA, asking 

for a variance from the view protection ordinance found in the Town Code at 

 

7 The John C. and Maureen G. Osborne Revocable Family Trust owns 2822 Lakeshore Drive, Timothy J. 

and Anna Voortman own 2826 Lakeshore Drive, and Christopher Lyons owns 2900 Lakeshore Drive, all in 

the Town of Long Beach, Indiana. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 7 of 40

154.060.8 The BZA held public hearings on the proposed development 

standards variances on August 13, October 13, November 10, November 24, 

and December 8, 2015.

[6] During the public hearings, Homeowners presented testimony from a 

contractor, a surveyor, an engineer, and an appraiser regarding Homeowners’ 

claim that there was an urgent need for the seawalls. Neulieb and LBCA,

among others, posed oral and written objections to the seawalls asserting, 

among other things, that the seawalls would be located in fragile dune and 

floodplain locations and could accelerate or cause beach erosion of Lake 

Michigan beaches and dunes that, according to LBCA, “are held in trust for 

Long Beach residents as members of the public by the State of Indiana and as 

Long Beach homeowners by the Town of Long Beach,” as well as those 

beaches and dunes “which are owned by neighboring private property owners, 

including LBCA members.” LBCA Br. at 22-23; LBCA Addendum at 30. In 

November 2015, Homeowners’ engineer, in response to the erosion concerns, 

wrote a letter to the BZA stating that “[t]he seawalls as proposed will not 

adversely affect the surrounding areas” and “do not present [] erosion risks[.]” 

Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 89-90. At the conclusion of the December 8, 2015

hearing, the BZA granted Homeowners’ requested variance from the view 

 

8

Section 154.060 prohibits the placement or erection of a “dwelling, accessory use, building, or structure” 

beyond a “view protection line” that lies 106.60 feet north of the northern boundary of the public right-ofway for Lake Shore Drive. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 8 of 40

protection ordinance, Long Beach Ordinance 154.060.

9

Id. at 56. The BZA’s 

December 8, 2015 decision included findings that “construction of the proposed 

seawall[s] is an absolute necessity to avoid discharge of septic contents . . . as 

well as to protect the [Homeowners’] propert[ies]” and that “[t]he proposed 

design of the seawall[s] is the minimum design (size, location, height, etc.) 

necessary to prevent a septic discharge and other property damage.” Id. at 97-

98, 104-05, 111-12. No party appealed that decision. 

[7] On December 14, 2015, each of the three Homeowners filed an application 

with the Building Commission for a building permit for a proposed seawall. On 

December 30, 2016, the then-Building Commissioner, Aaron Tomsheck,

approved the applications and issued a building permit to each of the three

Homeowners (“Building Permits”). The next day, Homeowners commenced 

construction efforts, which continued for the next month and included bringing 

in equipment, purchasing steel sheet piling, excavating, and driving sheet piles 

into the ground. 

 

9 At the November 24, 2015 hearing, counsel for Homeowners confirmed that “the ordinance for which 

we’re asking a variance is the view protection ordinance. It’s not the beach protection ordinance or the sand 

erosion ordinance. It’s designed to protect . . .the views from adjacent properties of the lake. Nothing else.” 

LBCA Br. at 23 (citing to LBCA Addendum at 8 (transcript of Nov. 24, 2015 BZA hearing)); see also Neulieb 

App. at 139, 192. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 9 of 40

[8] On January 25, 2016, LBCA filed administrative appeals to the BZA, pursuant 

to Indiana Code section 36-7-4-918.110 and Long Beach Ordinance 154.15311

challenging the legality of the three Building Permits issued on December 30,

2015. LBCA challenged the legality of the issuance of the three Building 

Permits on the basis that not all Long Beach ordinances had been complied 

with and Homeowners had not obtained all needed variances including those to 

comply with the following Long Beach Ordinances: 154.072 regarding 

accessory uses and structures; 154.112 regarding changes in dune topography; 

154.091 regarding special BZA approval of construction within a regulated 

floodplain; Chapter 155 governing construction in floodplains, including 

specifically the requirements to obtain a floodplain permit and comply with the 

 

10 Indiana Code section 36-7-4-918.1 provides, in part: 

The board of zoning appeals shall hear appeals from and determine appeals from and 

review: (1) any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative 

official, hearing officer, or staff member under the zoning ordinance; . . . (3) any order, 

requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative board or other body 

except a plan commission in relation to the enforcement of an ordinance adopted under 

this chapter requiring the procurement of an improvement in relation to location or 

occupancy permit.

11 Long Beach Ordinance 154.153(A)(1) states:

The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the following powers and it shall be its duty to . .

. hear and determine appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision, or 

determination made by an administrative official or staff member made in relation to the 

enforcement of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and the enforcement of the 

building and occupancy permits as adopted under IC 36-7 et seq. and all sections therein 

applicable.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 10 of 40

General Standards in 155.50; and Chapter 156 governing storm water

management planning to avoid diversion of floodwater onto neighboring 

properties, acceleration of erosion, and sediment transport and disposition. 

Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 174-215.

[9] The same day, Neulieb also filed an administrative appeal challenging the three 

building permits, asserting that the permits were issued in violation of the sideyard setback requirement of Long Beach Ordinance 154.077, which requires 

that structures be placed no closer than six feet from the side property lines; the 

Homeowners’ building plans indicated that their proposed seawalls would be 

built within one foot of the side property lines, contrary to the ordinance. Id. at 

217-18.

[10] On January 26, 2016, the then-Building Commissioner Aaron Tomsheck

(“Tomsheck”) issued a stop work order for each of the building permits

pursuant to automatic stay provisions of Indiana Code section 36-7-4-1001(a)

triggered by the filing of the administrative appeals.12 

[11] On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff Owners filed the Complaint in the trial court

against the Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb (together, “the 

 

12 Indiana Code section 36-7-4-1001(a) states, in relevant part: When an appeal from the decision of an 

official or board has been filed with the BZA, proceedings and work on the premises affected shall be stayed 

unless the official or board certifies to the BZA that, by reason of the facts stated in the certificate, a stay 

would cause imminent peril to life or property.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 11 of 40

Defendants”). Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 46-82. The Complaint contained six 

counts for declaratory judgment and six counts for injunctive relief: 

Count I: Declaratory judgment that the BZA lacked authority to 

consider LBCA’s January 26, 2016 administrative appeal 

regarding the propriety of the building permits issued to 

Homeowners; 

Count II: Declaratory judgment that LBCA lacked standing to 

file its administrative appeals;

Count III: Injunction to enjoin the BZA from taking any action 

on LBCA’s administrative appeal;

Count IV: Declaratory judgment that the BZA lacked authority 

to consider Neulieb’s January 26, 2016 administrative appeal

regarding the propriety of the building permits issued to 

Homeowners;

Count V: Declaratory judgment that Neulieb lacked standing to 

file his administrative appeal;

Count VI: Injunction to enjoin the BZA from taking any action 

on Neulieb’s administrative appeal;

Count VII: Declaratory judgment that the stop work orders 

(issued pursuant to Indiana Code section 36-7-4-1001(a) upon the 

filing of the administrative appeals) were invalid;

Count VIII: Injunction to enjoin Town Defendants from 

enforcing allegedly invalid stop work orders;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 12 of 40

Count IX: Declaratory judgment that certain individually named 

defendants (Jane Starr Neulieb, Larry Wall, John Wall, Peter 

Byvoets, Robert Lemay, Patrick Cannon, Joseph Jogmen, and 

Michael Gorman) each had conflicts of interest with the Plaintiffs

due to association with LBCA and were disqualified from 

participating in municipal activities relating to Plaintiffs’

construction of their seawalls, including participating in BZA, 

APC, and Town Council proceedings related to the 

administrative appeals; 

Count X: Injunction to enjoin defendants Jane Starr Neulieb 

Larry Wall, John Wall, Peter Byvoets, Robert Lemay, Patrick 

Cannon, Joseph Jogmen, and Michael Gorman, from 

participating in their official capacities in any municipal activities 

relating to Plaintiffs’ construction of their seawalls, including 

participating in the administrative appeals or the appointment of 

new or replacement members on the BZA; 

Count XI: Injunction to enjoin the Defendants from 

communicating with the BZA regarding proceedings related to 

the construction of seawalls or to the building permits, if 

communications would violate Town of Long Beach Zoning 

Ordinance § 154.153(B); and

Count XII: Injunction to enjoin the Defendants from unlawfully 

interfering with the construction of Homeowners’ seawalls.

See Appellants’ Br. at 34-35 (summarizing counts). The next day, Plaintiff 

Owners filed an Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction (“Application”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 13 of 40

[12] At the BZA’s February 9, 2016 meeting, three members13 of the BZA recused 

themselves from considering the administrative decision appeals filed by 

LBCA, citing a possible conflict of interest pursuant to Indiana Code section 

36-7-4-909(A)(1). Appellants’ App. Vol IX at 89-93 (transcript reflecting that 

Michael Gorman, John Kocher, and Meg Kanyer recused themselves); see also 

LBCA Addendum at 24. In March 2016, individuals were appointed to replace 

those who had recused themselves, pursuant to Indiana Code section 36-7-4-

907 and -909 and Long Beach Ordinance 154.153. Id. at 157. 

[13] On February 26, 2016, LBCA filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss, 

asserting that the Plaintiff Owners’ lawsuit sought to prevent LBCA and its 

members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to petition for 

review of the building permits, and, therefore, it constituted a Strategic Lawsuit 

Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) brought to deter public opposition to 

the proposed seawalls. LBCA asked the trial court to dismiss the Complaint

pursuant to Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statutes, Indiana Code chapter 34-7-7. 

LBCA’s motion to dismiss also sought dismissal of the Complaint (1) pursuant 

to Trial Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state an actionable claim against LBCA or 

any other defendant and (2) for lack of jurisdiction due to the Plaintiff Owners’

“attempt to circumvent [the] pending administrative proceeding” and failure to 

 

13 It appears that, at some point, John Wall also recused himself, for a total of four recusals. Appellants’ App. 

Vol. IX at 157 (March 21, 2016 Town Council minutes reflecting that John Wall also previously recused).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 14 of 40

exhaust administrative remedies as required by Indiana Code 36-7-4-1604 and 

36-7-4-1016(a). LBCA App. Vol. III at 2. 

[14] Neulieb also filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, similar in substance to 

that filed by LBCA, asking the trial court to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 

Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statutes and alleging that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction over the subject matter due to Homeowners’ failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies.

[15] On March 14, 2016, the Town Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6). With regard to T.R. 12(B)(1), Town 

Defendants argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because 

the Homeowners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Town’s 

App. Vol. II at 7-9, 14-17. With regard to T.R. 12(B)(6), the Town Defendants 

argued that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action against certain Town 

Defendants, including the Town Council, the Advisory Plan Commission, Jane 

Starr Neulieb, and Patrick Cannon. Id. at 8-9, 17-20.

[16] Meanwhile, in the BZA proceedings, Tomsheck issued on March 16, 2016, 

Certificates of Imminent Peril and rescinded the stop work orders, but the next 

day, Tomsheck issued a second set of stop work orders, one for each property,

on the basis that “the plans submitted for the seawall[s] do not comply with the 

6 ft. side yard setbacks required in the R-2 zone[,]” and the seawalls required an 

additional variance from the side-yard setback regulations found in Town Code
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 15 of 40

section 154.057.

14

 Neulieb App. Vol. II 83-85; Appellants’ App. Vol. VI at 108-

110. 

[17] On March 24, 2016, the Homeowners filed with the trial court an Emergency 

Application for Immediate Entry to Temporary Restraining Order Without a 

Hearing, which sought temporary injunctive relief to resume construction of the 

seawalls, asserting that relief was necessary to avoid irreparable harm to 

Homeowners and their properties. 

[18] On April 8, 2016, the trial court entered an Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 

for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“April 8 Order”), which concerned the 

arguments that Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies

before filing their Complaint. Thereafter, on April 19, 2016, the trial court 

entered an Order Denying LBCA’s and Neulieb’s Motions to Dismiss Relating 

to the Indiana Anti-SLAPP Statute. LBCA and Neulieb asked the trial court to 

certify the April 19 Order for appeal.

[19] The trial court held evidentiary hearings on March 18, April 8, May 2, and 

June 2-3 on the pending motions. On July 5, 2016, the trial court entered 

three separate orders, two of which are pertinent to this appeal. One was 

the July 5 Order, titled “Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motions for Injunctive 

 

14 Plaintiff Owners state that Tomsheck disagreed with the application of the setback ordinance to seawalls, 

and that Tomsheck issued statements to Homeowners and to the Town’s Advisory Plan Commission that the 

setback requirement had not been applied in the past to seawalls in the Town of Long Beach and this 

interpretation would not be consistent with the manner in which the ordinance had been applied to other 

landowners. Appellants’ Br. at 38. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 16 of 40

Relief and Declaratory Judgment,” which addressed claims in the 

Complaint and denied the declaratory and injunctive relief sought. 

Regarding the Plaintiff Owners’ requests for declaratory relief, the trial 

court concluded that “because Defendants have a clear vested right to 

appeal ‘[a]ny decision of the Building Commission concerning the issuance 

of an improvement location permit . . . when the decision in question[]

involves a permit issued in conflict with another existing provision of the 

Zoning Code . . .’ pursuant to Long Beach Ordinance Section 151.04, this 

Court cannot grant declaratory judgment.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 41. It 

further stated that granting declaratory judgment would “abridge 

Defendants’ right to appeal to the BZA” and granting the Plaintiff Owners’ 

requested relief “would be unjust[.]” Id. at 42. 

[20] With regard to the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff Owners, the trial court 

addressed the requests for injunctive relief in the Complaint and stated, 

“Nothing presented precludes the Defendants from exercising their right to 

appeal the decision of a Building Commissioner concerning the issuance of a 

permit that is in conflict with another existing provision of the zoning 

ordinance.” Id. at 44. It explained that it would not grant injunctive relief 

because: 

(1) Plaintiffs’ remedies at law are adequate because they have a 

chance to litigate the issues to the BZA and to subsequently file 

for judicial review of the BZA’s findings of the Appeals if the 

findings are not in their favor; (2) Plaintiffs cannot currently 

demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits as 

this Court has not been presented with the full and complete 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 17 of 40

facts, namely the findings of the pending BZA hearing of the 

Appeals; (3) the threatened injury to the Plaintiffs does not 

outweigh the threatened harm a grant of relief would occasion 

upon the defendant [sic], namely the harm resulting from 

abridging the Defendants’ right to appeal; and (4) the public 

interest would be disserved because granting injunctive relief is 

not in the public interest to deny the Defendants’ right to appeal.

Id. at 44-45.

[21] The trial court also issued the second pertinent order titled, “Order Denying 

Long Beach Community Alliance’s and James Neulieb’s Respective 

Motions to Request Certification for Interlocutory Appeal” (“Order 

Denying Certification”), which denied LBCA and Neulieb’s request for

certification of the trial court’s April 19 order that denied their respective 

motions to dismiss. LBCA and Neulieb had requested certification 

primarily on the issue of the trial court’s rejection of their claim that the 

Complaint constitutes a SLAPP lawsuit and should be dismissed under 

Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statutes. In the Order Denying Certification, the 

trial court rejected LBCA’s and Neulieb’s claims that (1) if the April 19 

order was not certified, each would suffer substantial expense and damage,

and (2) the April 19 order involves a substantial question of law. The trial 

court stated that because its July Order “renders the Interlocutory Appeal 

request irrelevant[,]” “the remedy by appeal is not otherwise inadequate.” 

Town’s App. Vol. II at 94.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 18 of 40

[22] Meanwhile, as proceedings on Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint progressed in the 

trial court, including discovery and briefing and hearings on various motions, 

the BZA continued to move forward with LBCA’s and Neulieb’s administrative 

appeals. Hearings were held, and the parties presented argument, evidence, 

and testimony. On June 29, 2016, the BZA entered an Order with specific 

Findings and Decisions rescinding the Building Commissioner’s issuance of the 

three Building Permits on the basis of failure to demonstrate compliance with 

Long Beach Ordinances 154.191 and 154.112. Appellants’ App. Vol. IX at 122-

46. In July 2016, Homeowners filed a petition for judicial review of the BZA’s 

June 29 Findings and Decision.

15

 Id. at 2-27.

[23] On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff Owners filed with this court their notice of appeal, 

identified as an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Trial Rule 14(A) or 

14(D), appealing the trial court’s July Order that denied injunctive and 

declaratory relief. LBCA and Neulieb each filed with this court a notice of 

appeal, on July 28 and August 3, 2016, respectively, appealing the April 19 

 

15 Initially, the Plaintiff Owners filed their petition for judicial review in the trial court under the same cause 

number as their Complaint; however, in August 2016, they filed “a separate but virtual[ly] identical” petition

for judicial review under a new cause number, in response to objections that it could not be filed in the 

ongoing trial court cause. Appellants’ Br. at 42. At an August 25, 2016 hearing on pending motions 

(including Plaintiff Owners’ motion to reconsider the July 5 Order), counsel for James Neulieb voiced 

opposition to “being brought into” the petition for judicial review case, because Neulieb had withdrawn his 

administrative appeal and was not a necessary party and because it possibly could have delayed his appeal of 

the anti-SLAPP issues. Appellants’ Suppl. App. Vol. VI at 193-94; Appellants’ App. Vol. X at 39-40, 51. The 

record reflects that Neulieb withdrew his administrative appeal on June 14, 2016. Appellants’ App. Vol. VIII 

at 202. On September 13, 2016, Plaintiff Owners filed an Indiana Trial Rule 41(A)(2) Motion to Dismiss 

James Neulieb, which the trial court granted the next day. Appellants’ Suppl. App. Vol. VI at 197-98.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 19 of 40

Order that denied their Anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss the Plaintiff Owners’ 

Complaint. They maintain that the April Order was rendered a final order (and 

was no longer interlocutory) by virtue of the trial court’s July Order and the 

Order Denying Certification. This court consolidated the appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

Overview of Parties’ Positions 

[24] Appellants/Plaintiff Owners (Homeowners and Duneland) and the three 

Appellees (Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb), together, raise a number of 

issues and cross-issues.

16

 Very generally summarized, the claims of the various 

parties are as follows: Plaintiff Owners assert that they “had no choice but to 

seek a declaration . . . [and] narrowly tailored injunctive relief . . . to prevent 

immediate irreparable harm” and that the trial court erred when, in the July 

Order, it denied their request for injunctive and declaratory relief. Appellants’ 

Reply Br. at 17. In support of their claims, the Plaintiff Owners also raise and 

address related issues of standing, res judicata, and conflicts of interest. The 

Town of Long Beach, LBCA, and Neulieb contend that the trial court erred 

when, in the April Orders, it denied their respective motions to dismiss the 

Complaint, which sought dismissal on various bases, including that (1) Plaintiff 

Owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed their 

 

16 We note the extensive volume of the appellate record in this case. Between all the parties, a combined ten 

briefs, totaling approximately 420 pages, and twenty-seven appendices were filed, in addition to exhibits and 

transcripts. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 20 of 40

Complaint and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) 

the Complaint violated Indiana’s prohibition against lawsuits that are Strategic 

Lawsuits Against Public Participation, and (3) Plaintiff Owners failed to state a 

cause of action against some of the named defendants.

[25] Amicus Curiae Indiana Association of Cities and Towns (“IACT”) and Indiana 

Municipal Lawyers Association (“IMLA”) filed a brief in support of Appellee 

Town Defendants. IACT and IMLA asserted that they an interest in the 

outcome of the present case, not particularly because of the subject seawalls, but 

because of the presence of zoning issues and procedures that IACT and IMLA 

membership regularly encounter. IACT and IMLA argue that the trial court 

erred when, in its April 8 Order, it denied the Town Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss that alleged that Plaintiff Owners’ failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies. IACT and IMLA urge that Plaintiff Owners “filed suit for 

declaratory judgment and sought preliminary injunctive relief before the 

administrative process was complete” and that, by doing so, Plaintiff Owners 

attempted to circumvent Indiana’s “orderly, statutorily prescribed [zoning] 

process.” IACT and IMLA Br. at 6. Alternatively, IACT and IMLA request 

that we affirm the trial court’s July 5 Order that declined to grant the requested 

injunctive or declaratory relief to Plaintiff Owners. Amicus Curiae 

Conservation Law Center filed a brief in support of Appellee LBCA, 

maintaining that the Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint constitutes a SLAPP suit and 

that the trial court should have granted LBCA’s motion to dismiss under 

Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statute.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 21 of 40

I. Jurisdiction and the July Order

[26] We first address whether we possess subject matter jurisdiction over the crossappeal issues that challenge the trial court’s April Orders that denied 

Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss. 

[27] Subject matter jurisdiction is “‘the power to hear and determine cases of the 

general class to which any particular proceeding belongs.’” HRC Hotels, LLC v. 

Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. II of Marion Cty., 8 N.E.3d 203, 206 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014) (quoting K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind. 2006)). The 

authority of our appellate courts to exercise jurisdiction is generally limited to 

appeals from final judgments. Ind. Appellate Rules 4(A)(1), 5(A); Ramsey v. 

Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 253 (Ind. 2012). “Whether the order was a final 

judgment governs the appellate courts’ subject matter jurisdiction[.]” Georgos v. 

Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003).

[28] Plaintiff Owners assert that there has been no final judgment, and, therefore, 

this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the cross-appeal issues

raised by Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb, which challenge the trial 

court’s April Orders that denied their respective motions to dismiss. Plaintiff 

Owners maintain that the July 5 Order is an interlocutory order, and thus Town 

Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb cannot appeal the prior, interlocutory and 

uncertified April Orders. LBCA, Neulieb, and Town Defendants each assert, 

separately from each other but in similar fashion, that the July 5 Order is a final 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 22 of 40

judgment, and therefore, they may appeal the trial court’s earlier April 8 and 

April 19 orders that denied their respective motions to dismiss.17

[29] We note that the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction over the crossappeals of Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb has been presented to this 

court, when after filing the appeal, but before briefing, the Plaintiff Owners 

moved to dismiss the appeal filed by LBCA and Neulieb. Plaintiff Owners 

asserted that the July 5 Order was interlocutory, not final, and LBCA and 

Neulieb could not appeal the prior, April 19 uncertified order. The motions 

panel of this court denied the Plaintiff Owners’ motion to dismiss. 

[30] As we have recognized, “‘It is well established that we may reconsider a ruling 

by the motions panel.’” Miller v. Hague Ins. Agency, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 406, 407 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Young, 852 N.E.2d 8, 12 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied). Thus, “Even though our motions panel has 

already ruled on this issue,” Plaintiff Owners are “not precluded from 

presenting [their] arguments to us.” Id. Although we are reluctant to overrule 

orders decided by the motions panel, we have inherent authority to reconsider 

any decision while an appeal remains in fieri. Id. 

 

17 We note that during the pendency of this appeal, Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb filed a Joint 

Motion for Temporary Stay of Appeal Proceedings and Remand to Trial Court for Limited Purpose, to 

remand for the limited purpose of clarifying whether the July 5 Order was or was not a final judgment that 

disposed of all relief requested by Plaintiff Owners. The motions panel of this court denied the Joint Motion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 23 of 40

[31] “Succinctly stated, a final judgment ‘disposes of all issues as to all parties 

thereby ending the particular case’” and “[i]t leaves nothing for future 

determination.” Georgos, 790 N.E.2d at 451 (quoting Doperalski v. City of 

Michigan City, 619 N.E.2d 584, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)). “This doctrine is 

now formalized in Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 2(H), which provides

that a judgment is final if, “it disposes of all claims as to all parties[.]” Id. 

(citing Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H)). 

[32] In support of their position that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over

the cross-appeal issues concerning the April Orders, Plaintiff Owners assert 

that, here, the July 5 Order stated that it was denying a motion, it used a 

preliminary (not permanent) injunction standard, and it did not enter final 

judgment. Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 31-45. Plaintiff Owners also argue that the 

July 5 Order did not dispose of all claims, as it made no findings regarding the

claim that LBCA lacked standing or regarding conflicts of interest of and 

disqualification of certain defendants. 

[33] LBCA, Neulieb, and the Town Defendants maintain that the July 5 Order, 

although captioned as a denial of motions for injunctive and declaratory relief, 

was a final order and should be considered a final judgment under Indiana 

Appellate Rule 2(H), which lists four different types of final judgments, along 

with a “catch-all” provision for “all judgments otherwise deemed final by law.” 

They further assert that, although Plaintiff Owners characterize the July 5 

Order as denying their Application for temporary injunctive relief, the July 

Order never even mentions the Application; rather, it expressly and repeatedly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 24 of 40

references the Complaint, expressly walks through the counts of the Complaint, 

and denies the relief requested. They point out that the trial court’s “Analysis”

tracks the Complaint claims and is divided into a section titled “A. Declaratory 

Judgment” and a section titled “B. Injunctive Relief.” Id. In the “Declaratory 

Judgment” section of the July 5 Order, the trial court paraphrased the

declaratory relief sought in Counts I, II, IV, V, VII and IX of the Complaint. 

After doing so, it stated: 

32. This Court finds that . . . because Defendants have a clear 

vested right to appeal “[a]ny decision of the Building 

Commission concerning the issuance of an improvement location 

permit. . . when the decision in question[] involves a permit 

issued in conflict with another existing provision of the Zoning 

Code[]” pursuant to Long Beach Ordinance Section 151.04, this 

Court cannot grant declaratory judgment.

. . . .

34. Moreover, “[t]he determinative factor of this [granting 

declaratory judgment] is whether the declaratory judgment will 

result in a just and more expeditious and economical 

determination of the entire controversy.” . . . Since granting 

declaratory judgment would abridge Defendants’ right to appeal 

to the BZA, this Court believes that granting Plaintiff [Owners]’

requested relief would be unjust, regardless of how expeditious or 

economic.

Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 41-42. 

[34] Then the July Order paraphrased the language in Counts III, VI, VIII, X, XI, 

and XII of the Complaint for injunctive relief and stated:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 25 of 40

41. This Court echoes its findings above. Nothing presented 

precludes the Defendants from exercising their right to appeal the 

decision of a Building Commissioner concerning the issuance of 

a permit that is in conflict with another existing provision of the 

zoning ordinance.

Id. at 44. The trial court determined that Plaintiff Owners failed to meet any of 

the four factors necessary to obtain injunctive relief, concluding, “This Court 

will not grant injunctive relief.” Id. Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb 

argue that, considering the trial court’s manner of analysis and reference to the 

Complaint, the July Order “disposes of all claims as to all parties” and is a final 

judgment as defined under Appellate Rule 2(H)(1).

[35] They urge that their “final order” interpretation is supported by the Order 

Denying Certification, also issued on July 5, which denied LBCA’s and 

Neulieb’s request asking the trial court to certify the April 19 Order that denied

their anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss. The Order Denying Certification stated 

that the July Order rendered their request for certification “irrelevant[.]” LBCA 

App. Vol. V at 16. “The only way to interpret that statement is that the trial 

court considered its July 5 Judgment Order to be final.” Town Defendants’ Br. at 

21. That is, Defendants contend, certification was no longer necessary in order

for LBCA and Neulieb to bring their Anti-SLAPP appeals.

[36] We agree with LBCA, Neulieb, and Town Defendants that the July 5 Order 

“disposes of all claims as to all parties” and thus constitutes a final judgment as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 26 of 40

defined under Appellate Rule 2(H)(1).

18

 We are not persuaded by the Plaintiff 

Owners’ arguments, including that, because the trial court referred in the July 5

Order to a preliminary injunction standard of review, the trial court only ruled 

on Plaintiff Owners’ Application for injunctive relief. The language of the July 

5 Order, along with the accompanying Order Denying Certification, indicate 

that the trial court intended to address and deny the claims of the Complaint, 

not the relief sought in the Application, and that the Defendants had the right to 

appeal the issuance of the permits to the BZA.

19

 Accordingly, we find that we 

have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cross-appeal issues concerning the 

trial court’s April Orders that denied the motions to dismiss filed by LBCA,

Neulieb, and Town Defendants.

20

 

18 Alternatively, Town Defendants assert that the July Order is final and appealable pursuant to section 1 of 

Indiana’s Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, which states:

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions have the power to declare rights, 

status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No 

action or proceeding is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or 

decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and 

effect. The declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

Ind. Code § 34-14-1-1. See Town Defendants’ Br. at 20. Because we resolve the issue under Appellate Rule 

2(H)(1), we do not reach the UDJA argument. 

19 To the extent that Plaintiff Owners argue that the trial court, without notice, improperly converted a 

preliminary injunction hearing to a hearing on the merits and that they were thereby denied due process, we 

find that the trial court conducted at least five hearings on the matter of injunctive and declaratory relief and 

that the Plaintiff Owners were not denied due process. 

20 LBCA asserts that, if we determine that the July 5 Order is a final order, then we should dismiss Plaintiff 

Owners’ appeal, given that they sought appeal of the July 5 Order pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A), 

an appeal as of right from an interlocutory order denying preliminary injunctive relief. Our motions panel 

denied to dismiss LBCA’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Owners’ appeal on this basis, as do we. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 27 of 40

II. Orders Denying Cross-Appellants’ Motions to Dismiss

[37] Having found that this court has jurisdiction, we next address the trial court’s 

April Orders ruling on the motions to dismiss.21 The Town Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because 

Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing their 

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the trial court, and it asked 

the trial court to dismiss Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint under Trial Rule 12(B)(1). 

LBCA’s and Neulieb’s respective motions to dismiss argued primarily that 

Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint should be dismissed because it constituted a 

SLAPP lawsuit and should be dismissed on that basis, but argued, alternatively, 

that the Complaint should be dismissed for Plaintiff Owners’ failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. 

[38] In their motion, Town Defendants argued that Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint 

was filed “in a clear attempt to usurp the BZA’s statutory authority.” Town 

Defendants’ App. Vol. II at 14-15 (citing Advantage Home Health Care, Inc. v. State 

Dept. of Health, 829 N.E.2d 499, 503 (Ind. 2005)). They urged that it was not 

appropriate for Plaintiff Owners to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in the 

trial court at that stage of the proceedings, and rather, the “correct procedure” 

 

21 Town Defendants suggest that, before addressing the propriety of the trial court’s denial of LBCA’s and 

Neulieb’s anti-SLAPP claims of their motions to dismiss, and before addressing the Plaintiff Owners’ 

allegations of error concerning the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief, this court should, in the interest 

of judicial economy, first address the cross-appeal issues asserting that Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies “because resolution of the preliminary jurisdictional issues will . . . conserve judicial 

resources.” Town Br. at 21. We agree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 28 of 40

was for Plaintiff Owners to have the BZA consider the administrative appeals 

that had been filed by LBCA and Neulieb:

Plaintiff [Owner]s are entitled to make all of their arguments 

regarding the deficiencies of the administrative appeals they have 

enumerated in their Verified Complaint directly to the BZA. 

While the Plaintiff [Owner]s claim that the administrative 

appeals contain various defects, those claimed defects must be 

first considered by the BZA. After the BZA has made a final 

decision on the administrative appeals, if the Plaintiff [Owner]s 

disagree with the decisions at that time they would be entitled to 

file a petition for judicial review of the decision pursuant to Ind. 

Code 36-7-4-1604(a).

Id. at 16 (Town Defendants’ memorandum of law in support of motion to 

dismiss). 

[39] On April 8, the trial court issued its Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack 

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and denied the three motions to dismiss with 

regard to the allegations that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff 

Owners had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

22

 In its decision, the trial 

court relied on Plaintiff Owners’ arguments that: (1) the variance that they 

applied for and received was for them to build a seawall; (2) the BZA 

considered Plaintiff Owners’ plans and applications and granted the variance on 

December 8, 2015; (3) and because none of the Defendants appealed the 

 

22 The April 8 Order addressed only the failure to exhaust arguments, and not the anti-SLAPP arguments 

that had been raised by LBCA and Neulieb; the trial court denied the anti-SLAPP claims by separate order 

on April 19. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 29 of 40

December 8, 2015 findings, those findings are res judicata and cannot be 

attacked by LBCA’s and Neulieb’s administrative appeals. See Appellants’ App. 

Vol. V at 193; LBCA App. Vol. IV at 67. Plaintiff Owners argued that “requiring 

them to return to the processes of the BZA would be allowing an ultra vires

action.” Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 193. In the April 8 Order, the trial court 

reasoned that it possessed jurisdiction because Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint was 

challenging the BZA’s authority to act on the administrative appeals, citing to

Indiana Department of Environmental Management v Twin Eagle LLC, 798 

N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003), where our Supreme Court had carved out an 

exception to the exhaustion requirement “if an action is brought upon the 

theory that [an] agency lacks the jurisdiction to act in a particular area.” Id. 

at 844; Town Defendants’ App. Vol. II at 4. 

[40] The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(1) is a function of what occurred in the 

trial court. Cmty. Hosp. v. Avant, 790 N.E.2d 585, 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). 

The standard of appellate review is dependent upon whether the trial court 

resolved disputed facts. Id. If the facts before the trial court are not in dispute, 

then the question of subject matter jurisdiction is purely one of law, and no 

deference is afforded to the trial court’s conclusion. Id. Where, as here, the 

relevant facts are not in dispute, we review the trial court’s April 8 Order and its 

determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction de novo.

[41] On appeal, Town Defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their 

motion to dismiss because Indiana law required Plaintiff Owners to fully 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 30 of 40

participate in the BZA’s administrative decision appeal process before asking 

for declaratory and injunctive relief via the Complaint: “[Plaintiff Owners’] 

proper course was to participate in the BZA hearing, receive a decision, and 

then file a petition for judicial review of any adverse decision[.]” Town 

Defendants’ Br. at 22-23. Town Defendants assert, “Ultimately, the trial court 

recognized this” in the subsequent July 5 Order, but “it was error to deny the 

[Motions] to Dismiss.” Town Defendants’ Reply Br. at 8-9. 

[42] Amicus IACT and IMLA maintain that Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint was an 

attempt to circumvent Indiana’s zoning laws. They urge, “The existing zoning 

statutes have been enacted to promote uniformity among planning and zoning 

powers in Indiana in addressing the myriad issues which arise” and that 

allowing an end-run around the zoning administrative process would 

“undermine[] the zoning administrative process upon which municipal 

governments throughout this State rely and invites parties wary of presenting an 

appeal before a [BZA] to directly sue municipalities to attain the outcome 

desired.” Amicus IACT and IMLA Br. at 9, 16-17. 

[43] Under Indiana law, “It is well-established that, if an administrative remedy is 

available, it must be pursued before a claimant is allowed access to the courts,” 

as “failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the trial court of subject 

matter jurisdiction.” Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217, 

1224 (Ind. 2000). As stated by the Indiana Supreme Court in Twin Eagle:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 31 of 40

We have repeatedly emphasized the value of completing 

administrative proceedings before resorting to judicial review. 

The reasons for this requirement are well established:

(1) premature litigation may be avoided; (2) an adequate 

record for judicial review may be compiled; and (3) agencies 

retain the opportunity and autonomy to correct their own 

errors. Even if the ground of the complaint is the 

unconstitutionality of the statute, which may be beyond the 

agency’s power to resolve, exhaustion of administrative 

remedies may still be required because administrative action 

may resolve the case on other grounds without confronting 

broader legal issues. 

798 N.E.2d at 844 (citations omitted). 

[44] Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb, as well as Amicus IACT and IMLA,

argue that Indiana Code section 36-7-4-918.1 (“Section 918.1”) and Long 

Beach Ordinance 154.153(A)(1) not only authorized but also required the BZA 

to review the administrative appeals. Section 918.1 states: 

[A] board of zoning appeals shall hear and determine appeals 

from and review:

(1) any order, requirements, decision, or determination 

made by an administrative official, hearing officer, or staff 

member under the zoning ordinance;

(2) any order, requirement, decision, or determination 

made by an administrative board or other body except a plan 

commission in relation to the enforcement of the zoning 

ordinance; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 32 of 40

(3) any order, requirement, decision, or determination 

made by an administrative board or other body except a plan 

commission in relation to the enforcement of an ordinance 

adopted under this chapter requiring the procurement of an 

improvement location or occupancy permit.

Long Beach Ordinance 154.153(A)(1) similarly provides:

The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the following powers 

and it shall be its duty to: (1) hear and determine appeals from 

and review any order, requirements, decision, or determination 

made by an administrative official or staff member made in 

relation to the enforcement of the zoning ordinance, subdivision 

ordinance, and the enforcement of the building and occupancy 

permits as adopted under IC 36-7 et seq. and all sections therein 

applicable.

Neulieb App. Vol. II at 67. 

[45] They further contend that Indiana Code sections 37-7-4-1600 through -1616, 

sometimes referred to as the “1600 series,” provide the method for appealing 

decisions of zoning boards. Indiana Code section 37-7-4-1601(a) states that it 

“establishes the exclusive means for judicial review of zoning decisions[.]” Ind. 

Code § 36-7-4-1601(a). Under section 1605, a petitioner must challenge a final 

zoning decision within thirty days of the zoning decision. I.C. § 36-7-4-1605. 

“[Failure] to timely object to a zoning decision or timely petition for review of a 

zoning decision within [30 days] waives the person’s right to judicial review[.]” 

I.C. § 36-7-4-1604.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 33 of 40

[46] Both sides of the divide – Plaintiff Owners on one side and Town Defendants, 

LBCA, and Neulieb on the other– cite to the 1600 series as providing an orderly 

review of zoning decisions, alleging that the other failed to follow it. Plaintiff 

Owners claim that seawall objectors, including LBCA and Neulieb, filed 

administrative appeals of the issuance of building permits rather than properly 

appealing the December 8, 2015 final order of the BZA that approved the view 

variance. According to Plaintiff Owners, the time to challenge the BZA’s 

December 8, 2015 decision expired on January 7, 2016, which Defendants 

failed to do so, and, thus, the December 8 decision is res judicata and cannot be 

relitigated; Plaintiff Owners characterize the administrative appeals as 

“collateral attacks” on the “final” December 2015 BZA decision. See Appellants’ 

Br. at 10, 27, 44.

[47] Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb maintain, however, that the December 

2015 BZA decision approved only a view variance for each property and that 

none of the Defendants opposes the grant of the view variance. Hence, they did 

not appeal it. Rather, their challenge is to the subsequently-issued building 

permits on the basis that the permits were required to, but did not, comply with 

all Long Beach ordinances, and administrative appeals of Building Permit 

decisions to local BZAs are authorized by Section 918.1 and Long Beach 

Ordinance 154.153(A)(1). They argue that their administrative appeals address 

entirely different ordinances than those addressed by the December 2015

variance and, thus, are not “collateral attacks” on a previously issued variance.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 34 of 40

[48] Furthermore, Town Defendants, LBCA, and Neulieb argue, and Amicus IACT 

and IMLA agree, Plaintiff Owners should have, but did not, follow the 1600 

series to appeal the issuance of stop work orders and, instead, filed the 

Complaint. That is, on March 17, 2016, the Building Commissioner issued a 

second set of stop work orders, which prevented the construction of a 

“structure” in the area of the side-yard setback, and Plaintiff Owners did not file 

an administrative decision appeal of the stop work orders or apply for a 

developmental standards variance, which are remedies that Town Defendants

maintain should have been exhausted before filing the Complaint. Amicus 

IACT and IMLA contend, “[Plaintiff Owners] filed suit for declaratory 

judgment and sought preliminary injunctive relief before the administrative 

process was complete and entirely outside of [the] orderly, statutorily prescribed 

process[,]” and by doing so, they “attempt[ed] to circumvent the process 

required by Indiana’s zoning scheme — a process administered in one fashion 

or another by virtually every municipal government in Indiana with planning 

and zoning jurisdiction.” IACT and IMLA Br. at 6. Therefore, they argue, 

Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint should have been dismissed.

[49] Town Defendants suggest to us that a case “squarely on point,” and in support 

of their position, is Barnette v. U.S. Architects LLP, 15 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014). Town Defendants’ Br. at 23. In Barnette, homeowners Albert and Julie 

Bowen hired U.S. Architects to design what the Carmel Department of 

Community Services (“the Department”) called an “accessory building” on

their residential property in Carmel, Indiana. Barnette, 15 N.E.3d at 3. U.S.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 35 of 40

Architects designed the building and submitted plans for a building permit, and 

the Department issued a building permit in February 2010.

23

 The Bowens 

constructed the accessory building, and in October 2010, the Department issued 

a certificate of occupancy. Id. at 4. After construction was complete, the 

Barnettes, who were the next-door neighbors of the Bowens, complained to the 

Department about the height of the building because they believed it was too 

tall in violation of the zoning code ordinance applicable to accessory buildings. 

Id. at 4-5. The Department reviewed the complaint and sent the Bowens a letter 

in March 2011 that read in part, “Upon review, it has come to our attention this 

complaint is valid. We believe the original building permit was issued in error. 

According to the building permit plans that were submitted the structure is eight 

feet taller than is permitted. In order to comply . . . it will be necessary for you 

to file an application for a Developmental Standards Variance.” Id. at 5. The

Bowens applied for a variance with the BZA, and after a public hearing, the 

BZA denied the variance request. Id. The Bowens did not administratively 

appeal the Department’s March 2011 determination that their building was too 

tall nor did they appeal the BZA’s April 2011 denial of a variance. In June 

2011, the Department notified the Bowens that their building violated the 

 

23 The building permit contained the following language: “THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS PERMITTED 

TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BASED ON ANY OF THE 

FOLLOWING: 1. WHEN THE CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR; 2. WHEN THE 

INCORRECT INFORMATION IS SUPPLIED; 3. WHEN THE BUILDING IS IN VIOLATION OF 

THE CODE.” Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP, 15 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 36 of 40

height ordinance and that the Department would be withdrawing the certificate 

of occupancy. The Bowens did not appeal that decision. 

[50] In September 2011, the Bowens and U.S. Architects filed a complaint for 

declaratory relief against the Department and the BZA (together, “the City of 

Carmel”), seeking an interpretation of the ordinance at issue and a 

determination that their building complied with it. Id. at 6. The City of Carmel 

filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting, among other things, 

that the Bowens failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the Barnettes 

intervened and joined the City of Carmel’s motion. The Bowens and U.S. 

Architects filed a motion for summary judgment.

[51] The trial court denied the City of Carmel’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, and it granted the Bowens’ requested relief, finding that the 

Department violated their due process rights and that the Department should be 

estopped from revoking the certificate of occupancy. Id. at 7. The trial court 

ordered the City of Carmel to immediately reissue the Certificate of Occupancy 

or to provide just compensation because of the due process violation. Id.

[52] The Barnettes appealed and asserted that the declaratory judgment action 

should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Bowens 

failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. This court agreed. After noting

that, instead of filing a motion for judgment on the evidence, “[T]he City 

should have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1)” the Barnette court held that the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 37 of 40

court should have dismissed the Bowens’ declaratory judgment complaint 

because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Id. at 8. In doing 

so, the Barnette court stated, “[T]he Bowens had two opportunities to appeal 

from and be heard on the [Department]’s determination that their accessory 

building is too tall and an opportunity to appeal from and be heard on the 

BZA’s denial of a variance, and they failed to take advantage of any of those 

opportunities.” Id. at 11. 

[53] In this appeal, Town Defendants maintain that, “consistent with this [c]ourt’s 

holding in Barnette,” the Plaintiff Owners’ “failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies should have resulted in a dismissal under Trial Rule 12(B)(1).” Town 

Defendants’ Br. at 26. We agree and find it was error for the trial court in the 

present case not to dismiss Plaintiff Owners’ Complaint on this basis. 

[54] Plaintiff Owners do not dispute the exhaustion doctrine, but argue that they 

should nevertheless be excused from exhausting their administrative remedies

based on limited exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. For instance, Plaintiff 

Owners maintain that the trial court, when determining in its April 8 Order that 

it had jurisdiction, properly referred to and relied upon Twin Eagle, which 

carved out an exception to the exhaustion requirement. The Twin Eagle Court

determined that “[t]o the extent the issue turns on statutory construction, 

whether an agency possesses jurisdiction over a matter is a question of law 

for the courts[,]” and “[I]f an action is brought upon the theory that the agency 

lacks the jurisdiction to act in a particular area, exhaustion of remedies is not 

required.” 798 N.E.2d at 844. We disagree that, pursuant to Twin Eagle,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 38 of 40

Plaintiff Owners were not required to exhaust administrative remedies. In Twin 

Eagle, the trial court was asked a pure question of statutory construction, 

namely whether IDEM possessed authority to regulate the types of waters at 

issue; here, there was no issue of statutory construction, and, in fact, Section 

918.1 grants the BZA the power and duty to hear administrative appeals 

and the 1600 series provide the method for appealing decisions of zoning 

boards. We therefore find that Twin Eagle is distinguishable and not 

controlling of our decision. 

[55] Plaintiff Owners also contend that exhaustion of administrative remedies 

was excused because it would have been futile for them to resort to the 

administrative process. See Johnson v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 

979, 984 (Ind. 2005) (exhaustion of administrative remedies may be excused 

if the exercise would be futile, which requires showing that “administrative 

agency was powerless to affect a remedy or that it would have been 

impossible or fruitless and of no value under the circumstances”). Plaintiff 

Owners’ claim, among other things, is that participating in the BZA 

administrative process would have been futile because the BZA is 

comprised of or includes members that are biased against it due to conflicts 

of interest. Whether conflicts exist is a fact-sensitive matter, to be brought 

to the attention of the BZA and, in the face of an adverse decision, taken up 

on judicial review. See New Trend Beauty Sch. v. Ind. State Bd. of Beauty Culturist 

Exam’rs, 518 N.E.2d 1101, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (remedy for claims of bias 

is to proceed before administrative body and make a record, which will give 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 39 of 40

agency opportunity to correct or prevent error, without judicial interference). 

To the extent that Plaintiff Owners’ claim is that they are sure the BZA would 

rule against them, “[T]he mere fact that an administrative agency might refuse 

to provide the relief requested does not amount to futility.” Johnson, 829 

N.E.2d at 984. 

[56] As the Barnette court observed, “‘[w]here an administrative remedy is readily 

available, filing a declaratory judgment action is not a suitable alternative.’” 

Barnette, 15 N.E.3d at 9 (quoting Carter v. Nugent Sand Co., 925 N.E.2d 356, 360 

(Ind. 2010)). Similarly, Indiana courts have recognized that a trial court has no 

jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction where a party has failed to exhaust 

his or her administrative remedies. See Lake Cty. Sheriff’s Corr. Merit Bd. v. Peron, 

756 N.E.2d 1025, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunction where parties failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies). 

[57] We conclude that Plaintiff Owners failed to exhaust their administrative 

remedies before filing their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and, 

therefore, we reverse the trial court’s April 8 Order that denied the motions to 

dismiss.

24

 

24 Because we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we do not reach LBCA’s and 

Neulieb’s other cross appeal issues asserting that the trial court should have dismissed the Complaint under 

Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statutes, nor do we reach Plaintiff Owners’ appellate claims challenging the July 5 

Order denying injunctive and declaratory relief. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 46A03-1607-PL-1698 | May 30, 2017 Page 40 of 40

[58] Reversed.

[59] Robb, J., and Barnes, J., concur.