Court Opinion

ID: 9712077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:46:08.518233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:09.755712
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge.
Defendant-appellant City of Lake Station brings an interlocutory appeal. Lake Station argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss.
The facts indicate that Moore Real Estate applied for a building permit for the construction of a new dwelling. On April 11, 1985, the Lake Station Building Commission tabled a decision on whether to grant the permit. On October 12, 1985, Moore Real Estate mailed notice of tort claim to Lake Station. On October 18, 1985, Moore Real Estate filed a complaint for mandate and damages against Lake Station. On February 26, 1988, the trial court denied Lake Station’s motion to dismiss. The Lake Station Building Commission has never made a decision on whether to grant Moore Real Estate’s building permit application.
Lake Station contends that Moore Real Estate’s complaint should be barred because the tort claim notice was untimely. A claim under the Indiana Tort Claims Act is barred unless notice to the political subdivision is filed with the governing body within 180 days after the loss occurs.
IND.CODE § 34-4-16.5-7 (1982 Ed.); Scott County v. Stamper (1981), Ind.App., 425 N.E.2d 264, 265.
The notice requirement applies to the damages portion of the complaint filed by Moore Real Estate. Failure to give a timely notice to a governmental entity is a jurisdictional bar to maintaining a tort action against the entity. Compliance with the statutory notice requirements of the Tort Claims Act is a procedural prerequisite to recovery against a government entity. Rodgers v. Martinsville School Corp. (1988), Ind.App., 521 N.E.2d 1322, 1325.
Moore Real Estate presented the tort claim notice to Lake Station more than 180 days after the Building Commission tabled the building permit application. The Building Commission’s failure to decide on whether to grant or deny the building permit at its April 11,1985 meeting caused the damages alleged in Moore Real Estate’s complaint. The tort claim notice was filed more than 180 days after the omission that caused the alleged loss. Moore Real Estate’s failure to comply with the tort claim notice requirement is fatal to the damages claim. The trial court erred in failing to grant Lake Station’s motion to dismiss the tort damages action.
*63The Tort Claims Act notice requirement does not apply to the mandate portion of the action brought by Moore Real Estate. The Tort Claims Act applies only “to a claim or suit in tort.” IND.CODE § 34-4-16.5-1 (1982 Ed.). A mandate action is authorized by IND.CODE § 34-1-58-2 (1982 Ed.) which states:
“The action for mandate may be prosecuted against any inferior tribunal, corporation, public or corporate officer or person to compel the performance of any act which the law specifically enjoins, or any duty resulting from any office, trust or station.”
This has been interpreted as enabling a court to properly mandate public officials, boards and commissions to perform a clear, absolute and imperative duty imposed by law. Irmscher v. McCue (1987), Ind.App., 504 N.E.2d 1034, 1038.
Moore Real Estate’s mandate action was brought to compel the Lake Station Building Commission to issue the building permit. The trial court was correct in not dismissing the mandate portion of Moore Real Estate’s complaint.
The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the tort action when the tort claim notice was untimely filed. The trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the mandate action.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
MILLER, J., concurs.
STATON, J., dissents with opinion.