You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Butler Toyota, Inc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division I

Citations: 493 N.E.2d 169; 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2582Docket: No. 4-385A57

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; March 18, 1986; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves appellants, Butler Toyota, Inc. and Jonathan's Keepe, who sought a writ of certiorari against appellee Dellen Realty Inc. to challenge the redocketing of a variance request before the Board of Zoning Appeals following an adverse ruling. Butler contended that the redocketing breached Board rules. They filed their petition on November 7, 1984, but encountered a motion to dismiss by Dellen on November 26, due to defective service of the notice. The circuit court granted Dellen's motion to dismiss on January 24, 1985, emphasizing proper service requirements. Butler argued that service on Dellen's attorney of record was adequate under Indiana Trial Rule 5(B) and IND. CODE. 36-7-4-1005. However, the court, referencing Kupfer et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, clarified that a petition for a writ of certiorari constitutes an original lawsuit, thus necessitating service on an organization's executive officer or designated agent per Trial Rule 4.6(A)(1). The court's ruling on the improper service resulted in a lack of jurisdiction and thus upheld the dismissal of Butler's petition. The circuit court's decision was affirmed, with Judge Garrard concurring and Judge Staton dissenting.

Legal Issues Addressed

Interpretation of Indiana Trial Rule 5(B)

Application: While Indiana Trial Rule 5(B) allows service upon an attorney, it does not supersede the requirement for proper service in original actions as dictated by Trial Rule 4.

Reasoning: Butler references Indiana Trial Rule 5(B), which permits service on an attorney unless the court specifies otherwise, and IND. CODE. 36-7-4-1005, which requires notice to each adverse party as recorded by the Board.

Jurisdiction and Proper Service

Application: Improper service of process, when not executed in accordance with Trial Rule 4.6(A)(1), results in a lack of jurisdiction, leading to dismissal.

Reasoning: Since Dellen's attorney did not meet these criteria, service on the attorney was deemed improper. Consequently, the failure to serve notice correctly deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, warranting dismissal of the writ.

Service of Process in Original Lawsuits

Application: The case underscores the necessity of serving the correct party in an original lawsuit, specifically an organization's executive officer or designated agent, rather than its attorney.

Reasoning: The court cited the precedent set in Kupfer et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, which established that a petition for a writ of certiorari is an original lawsuit requiring proper service under Trial Rule 4.