Source: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archive/06040401.ewn.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 21:51:33
Document Index: 701693157

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 36', 'art:\n3', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36']

The drains located within the Watershed were constructed around the year 1900. The Watershed is comprised of approximately 2,854 acres and 164 separate parcels. For all relevant periods, the drains in the Watershed have been regulated drains
See footnote and have been characterized as drains in need of periodic maintenance. See Ind. Code § 36-9-27-34(a)(2) (stating county surveyor shall classify all regulated drains in county as either drains in need of reconstruction, drains in need of periodic maintenance, or drains that should be vacated).
See footnote Specifically, in 1985, the county surveyor at that time classified the drains as drains in need of periodic maintenance, but the Board ordered no assessment fees.
I have attached hereto a list of all lands that I feel are benefited by the Hosler Watershed System[;] the list is labeled as The Hosler Watershed System Schedule of Assessments.[
See footnote ] This list includes the parcel number and the name of the owner of each tract of land as shown in the record of transfers kept by the Noble County Auditor. Also included within said list are the proposed annual assessments of each tract of land being benefited by the periodic maintenance [of] said drain. The percent of the total annual assessment of the system is also shown for each landowner.
The annual cost of periodic maintenance for the Hosler Watershed System is estimated to be $37,221.65. This rate, if established by the Noble County Drainage Board, would continue until such time that the system balance is equal to four times the annual assessment. At that point the system would stop collecting until the system balance drops below four times the annual assessment when it would begin collecting again. The Noble County Drainage Board could also determine that once a given amount of work has been performed or at a certain time that the rates for the system would be reduced to a lower amount. In the process of establishing the proposed periodic maintenance rates, I have considered all benefits (including those identified in I.C. 36-9-27-112) accruing to each parcel of land within the Hosler Watershed System. Different parcels of land may derive different benefits from the maintenance of the regulated drains within this system. It is my opinion that each acre of land benefits by the below mentioned rate per acre and that all tracts of land benefit by the minimum rates as shown below. Id. at 16-17. Zeigler recommended in his report that each landowner pay $12 per acre, with a minimum rate of $75 per parcel.
On February 11, 2002, the Board conducted a hearing concerning maintenance of the Watershed.
See footnote During the hearing, Zeigler reported on the status of the Watershed. The minutes of the hearing provide in relevant part:
Zeigler stated that the proposed assessment sent out is $12.00 an acre, with a $75.00 minimum. This would bring in $37,221.65 a year. This assessment will replace or repair every county drain in the system over a course of 15 years. This assessment rate could be cut depending on what amount of work the Board and[/]or landowners would like to have done and how soon. There are some tiles that could be opened up and made into an open drain and this would save some money. There was an emergency repair under county road 300E on the [Veazey] tile due to flooding over the road. This needed to be done before someone was hurt. After inspecting the [Veazey] tile[,] there were 16 blowholes and a reverse grade. This will cost $4,000.00 to $6,000.00 to repair just the blowholes on this one tile. It would be better just to replace the whole [Veazey] tile instead of trying to repair the blowholes. It would be more cost efficient. Id. at 43-44. Zeigler also stated during the hearing that, in his opinion, the proposed assessment rates were not excessive.
The Board reconvened its hearing on the Watershed on September 9, 2002.
See footnote After Zeigler discussed his amended report and members of the public commented, the Board adopted Zeiglers amended report and ordered that the periodic maintenance projects outlined in that report be performed. The Board then issued both Findings of Fact for Periodic Maintenance and a Final Order for the Periodic Maintenance of the Hosler Tile Watershed System, which provide in relevant part:
3. Schedule of Assessments. That the Board then prepared a schedule of assessments and damages pursuant to I.C. 36-9-27-42, naming each landowner benefited or damaged, his address, percent of total cost to be assessed against each tract of land based upon benefit received, and showing the amount of each owners annual assessment based on the total estimated cost of the proposed periodic maintenance.[
On September 27, 2002, the Petitioners filed a petition for judicial review of the Boards final order, alleging in relevant part: (1) the Boards order was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful or not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the Boards order was not based upon the benefits that would allegedly accrue to each tract of land as a result of the Boards determination[;] (3) the Petitioners land will not be benefited by the periodic maintenance; (4) the Petitioners land will be damaged by the periodic maintenance; (5) the Board failed to substantiate that the regulated drain[s] within the Hosler Watershed system are not performing the function[;] and (6) the Board failed to consider the factors listed at Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-112 in determining benefits to the individual tracts. Appellants App. at 50. The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition for judicial review on July 18, 2003. During that hearing, the Petitioners testified to the details of each of their respective tracts of land to support their claim that the periodic maintenance ordered by the Board would not benefit their land. In addition, Anthony Fleming, a geologist who specializes in hydrogeology and also a landowner in the Watershed, testified at length regarding the alleged need and/or benefit of the periodic maintenance projects ordered. Flemings testimony, as a whole, conflicted with the evidence and opinions Zeigler had expressed at the hearings. Zeigler also testified at length regarding, among other things, the process by which he reached the assessment rates recommended in his original and amended reports.
Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-107 governs judicial review of a drainage board decision, and subsection (c) of that statute provides that [i]n affirming or setting aside a decision or determination of the board, the court shall enter its findings and order or judgment on the record. In addition, Indiana Trial Rule 52(A)(3) states in relevant part that the trial court shall make special findings of fact without request in any . . . case provided by these rules or by statute. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the trial court in this case was required to enter special findings of fact. See id. We apply a two-tiered standard of review to special findings entered under Trial Rule 52(A). See Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353, 358 (Ind. 2002). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will set aside the trial courts findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous. See id. In reviewing the trial courts entry of special findings, we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Rather, we must accept the ultimate facts as stated by the trial court if there is evidence to sustain them. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous where a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Here, at the beginning of the hearing on July 18, 2003, the trial court acknowledged its statutory duty to separate those issues it was to review de novo from other claims the Petitioners had raised in their petition for judicial review.
See footnote In particular, the trial court was required under the statute to review de novo the Petitioners claims regarding benefits and/or damages to their land as a result of the periodic maintenance. In addressing all other claims, the trial court, and this court, is limited to the record that was before the Board when it issued its final order. See I.C. § 36-9-27-107(d). In addition to the statute that explains the trial courts de novo review of certain issues, the Petitioners arguments primarily involve two statutes. Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-39 provides:
When the board receives a maintenance report[
See footnote ] under section 38 of this chapter, it shall prepare a schedule of assessments that includes the following items:
The Petitioners set out the trial courts findings numbered 7 through 11 as pertinent to their appeal. Brief of Appellant at 15. However, they do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support each of those findings. Rather, the Petitioners arguments are most easily characterized as an attack on the trial courts finding that the Board considered all relevant factors and made all required findings necessary to issue its final order in compliance with Indiana law[.] Appellants App. at 4-5.
See footnote To the extent that the Petitioners do address particular findings, we discuss those below.
The Petitioners also assert that the evidence does not support the trial courts finding that the Board considered the factors listed under Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-112(a) when it determined that their tracts of land would benefit from the periodic maintenance.
See footnote Again, under Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-39, after the Board receives a maintenance report from the surveyor, it shall prepare a schedule of assessments that includes certain items. One of those items is [a] description of each tract of land determined to be benefited . . . . I.C. § 36-9-27-39(1). That statutes also provides that the board may consider the factors listed in section 112 . . . in preparing the schedule. I.C. § 36-9-27-39 (emphasis added). And under Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-112(a), in determining benefits to land for purposes of the schedule of assessments, the Board may consider the factors listed therein, in addition to any other factors affecting maintenance.
In any event, our review of the record that was before the Board supports the trial courts finding that the Board considered all relevant factors. Appellants App. at 6. Zeiglers original and amended reports state that, in the process of establishing the proposed periodic maintenance rates, he considered all benefits (including those identified in I.C. 36-9-27-112) accruing to each parcel of land within the Hosler watershed System. Id. at 9, 17. Both reports also summarize that [d]ifferent parcels of land may derive different benefits from the maintenance of the regulated drains within the system[,] and that in his opinion, each acre of land benefits by [$4 per acre] and that all tracts of land benefit by the minimum rate [of $25]. Id. In addition, during the February 2002 hearing, one of the Board members asked Zeigler whether he had assessed all benefits and whether the benefits were excessive. Zeigler responded that, in his opinion, the benefits are not excessive. Id. at 45. Based on Zeiglers reports and statements at the hearing, the Board found that [n]one of the benefit factors of Section 112 . . . are excluded[.] Id. at 12. Further, while the Petitioners focus on the factors listed under section 112(a), the record also shows that Zeigler presented the Board with aerial photographs, drainage maps, and drawings of the Watershed. In addition to the factors listed under section 112(a), that statute also permits the Board to review aerial photographs and topographical and other maps in determining benefits or damages to land. See I.C. § 36-9-27-112(b). Therefore, we conclude that there was evidence before the Board to support the trial courts finding that the Board considered all statutory factors in determining benefits.
The only issue the trial court heard de novo was whether the Petitioners land would be benefited and/or damaged by the periodic maintenance and whether the benefits assessed were excessive. The Petitioners allege that the evidence presented both to the Board and to the trial court at the July 18 hearing fails to support the trial courts finding that the [Board] has proven that the acreage owned by the [Petitioners] will benefit both directly and indirectly, from the proposed periodic maintenance. Appellants App. at 4. In both his original and amended reports, Zeigler expressed his belief that all land included on The Hosler Watershed System Schedule of Assessments will benefit from periodic maintenance. And as we discussed above, see A. Record Before the Board, supra, Zeiglers amended report provides that [d]ifferent parcels of land may derive different benefits from the maintenance of the regulated drains within the system[,] and that in his opinion, each acre of land benefits by [$4 per acre] and that all tracts of land benefit by the minimum rate [of $25]. Appellants App. at 9. In addition, Zeigler stated during the February 2002 hearing that, in his opinion, the benefits [assessed] are not excessive. Id. at 45.
Well number one, that if there was no maintenance performed on that at all then certainly you would not be able to . . . produce a crop on the land that he has there. And I think as indicated by Mr. Akers[] . . . testimony before that he has maintained that drain over the years by himself. So that, that benefit is derived because of the maintenance . . . . Transcript at 117. Similarly, Terry Clouse testified that in 1997, his family installed tile on their property to get rid of standing water. That the Akers and the Clouses have performed their own maintenance over the years supports a reasonable inference that periodic maintenance performed by the county will benefit their land in the future. In determining whether lands are benefited, . . . it is not necessary that the benefits be direct and immediate to justify an assessment. Future possibilities, if any, as well as collateral or indirect benefits, may be considered. Hubenthal v. Crain, 239 Ind. 646, 159 N.E.2d 850, 853 (1959) (quotations and citation omitted). Zeigler also explained that after he personally viewed the various tracts of land within the Watershed and studied various drainage maps, and based upon his knowledge of the county and years of experience, he evaluated the benefits to each tract. He explained that all of the land in the Watershed is agricultural. And although different tracts would benefit for different reasons, he determined that, on balance, each tract would benefit equally from periodic maintenance. In particular, regarding the volume of water from each tract, he stated:
Id. at 153-54. Still, the Petitioners direct us to Flemings testimony, which contradicts Zeiglers statements that all tracts will benefit equally. For example, Fleming testified that wooded tracts produce less water flow and that uplands would receive no benefit from periodic maintenance. And Akers, whose family has owned 152 acres in the Watershed since 1937, testified that he has not had problems with flooding on his property. Clouse, whose family has owned 159 acres in the Watershed since 1941, also denied any problems with his land flooding. But we will not reweigh the evidence at the hearing, see Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 358, and based on our review of the record, the Petitioners have not firmly convinced us that the trial court made a mistake when it found that the Petitioners will benefit both directly and indirectly from the periodic maintenance. See Carmichael, 754 N.E.2d at 625; see also Hubenthal, 239 Ind. 646, 159 N.E.2d at 853 (explaining benefits to land need not be direct and immediate). C. Was the assessment arbitrary as a matter of law?
Id. at 852 (emphasis added). The court emphasized that the clear mandate of the statute in effect at that time was that the costs of installation or repair of drains shall be apportioned according to the benefits derived therefrom. Id. at 853 (quotations and citation omitted). Because the assessment in that case did not take into account benefits to the tracts of land, the court reversed the trial courts judgment and remanded for a new trial. Id. More recently in Whitley, 461 N.E.2d at 1147, the drainage board approved a project to clear the Eel River and ordered a uniform assessment upon all tracts of land within the Eel River watershed. But as in Hubenthal, the drainage board in Whitley did not assess the benefits to each tract of land. Instead, the theory behind the uniform assessment was that every acre of land which drained into the river contributed to the drainage problems and, thus, all tracts must pay equally. Id. at 1147-48. When landowners challenged the assessment in their petition for judicial review, the trial court concluded that the assessment was arbitrary, and we affirmed the trial courts conclusion on appeal. Indeed, we followed Hubenthal and clarified that the current drainage statutes retain the prior laws requirement that assessments be based upon benefits accruing from the maintenance. Id. at 1148. The Petitioners suggest that Hubenthal and Whitley establish that uniform per acre assessments are per se invalid. We disagree. Those cases merely clarify the requirement that currently appears in Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-39(2), namely, that the percentage of the cost of periodic maintenance assessed to each tract of land shall be based upon the benefit accruing to each tract from the maintenance.
See footnote As we have discussed throughout this opinion, the Board in this case did not impose a per acre assessment rate without considering the benefits and damages to the affected tracts of land. Our review of Zeiglers surveyors reports and his testimony at the July 18, 2003, hearing establishes that he recommended the per acre and minimum per parcel rates after he had viewed the tracts and land and considered the various benefit factors set out under Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-112(a), in addition to aerial photographs and drainage maps. Based on all of those considerations, Zeigler concluded that each tract of land would benefit equally from the periodic maintenance, and the Board adopted his recommendation.See footnote Because the Board considered the benefits to the tracts of land, Hubenthal and Whitley are inapposite. In a watershed system, drainage within the watershed does not respect property lines, and a pro-ration of benefits and assessments based on acreage is not unreasonable, provided that the benefits have been considered. We conclude that the Boards per acre and minimum per parcel assessment rates are not arbitrary as a matter of law, and the trial court did not err when it affirmed the Boards final order.
Footnote: A regulated drain means an open drain, a tiled drain, or a combination of the two. Ind. Code § 36-9-27-2. An open drain means a natural or artificial open channel that: (1) carries surplus water; and (2) was established under or made subject to any drainage statute. Id. A tiled drain means a tiled channel that: (1) carries surplus water; and (2) was established under or made subject to any drainage statute. Id. Our review of the record reveals that the Watershed consists of a combination of at least one open drain and at least one tiled drain. Footnote: A regulated drain is in need of periodic maintenance when, with or without the use of mechanical equipment, it can be made to perform the function for which it was designed and constructed, and to properly drain all affected land under current conditions, by periodically:
Footnote: The schedule of assessments was not included in either partys appendix. Footnote: Prior to that date, the Petitioners, along with other landowners, filed Objections to Proposed Assessment with the Board.
Footnote: The record suggests that the Board did reconvene on April 8, 2002, but we do not have the minutes for that hearing, nor do the parties discuss that hearing. Footnote: Again, the schedule of assessments was not made part of the record on appeal. Footnote: Contrary to the statute, the trial court did not proceed to determine the issues that may not be heard de novo. See I.C. § 36-9-27-107(d). Rather, the trial court addressed all issues in a single judgment. Neither party claims that this amounts to error, and we find no harm given that the court separated the benefits and damages issues from the other claims the Petitioners raised in their petition. Footnote: See I.C. § 36-9-27-38 (providing that surveyor shall prepare report for regulated drains classified in need of periodic maintenance). Footnote: The Petitioners complain that the trial courts findings do not inform the litigants of the specific evidentiary foundation for its decision. Brief of Appellants at 15. Our courts have, on occasion, remanded cases where the trial court issued special findings that were merely a recitation of the evidence presented at the hearing. See In re T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). But the Petitioners do not request that we remand the case for entry of more specific findings, and the courts findings in this case are more than a mere recitation of facts. Indeed, the trial courts findings have allowed the Petitioners to formulate intelligent and specific arguments on appeal. See id. (explaining trial courts duty to enter findings that allow parties to formulate arguments on appeal). We conclude that the trial courts findings are sufficient. Footnote: The trial court did not make a specific finding that the Board considered the factors under section 112. However, the trial court did find that the Noble County Surveyor did conduct an assessment of the benefits and damages that would accrue to each tract of land and presented this information to the Board which based its decision on this assessment. Appellants App. at 5. The court also found in relevant part that the Board considered all relevant factors . . . in compliance with Indiana law. Id. Footnote: Again, however, that statute does not require the Board to identify the benefits assessed to each parcel in its assessment order.