Sec. 12. (a) Persons who:
(1) own or are interested in any lots or parts of lots; and
(2) want to vacate all or part of a public way or public place in or
contiguous to those lots or parts of lots;
may file a petition for vacation with the legislative body of:
(A) a municipality, if all or any part of the public way or public
place to be vacated is located within the corporate boundaries
of that municipality; or
(B) the county, if all or the only part of the public way or public
place to be vacated is located outside the corporate boundaries
of a municipality.
(b) Notice of the petition must be given in the manner prescribed by
subsection (c). The petition must:
(1) state the circumstances of the case;
(2) specifically describe the property proposed to be vacated; and
(3) give the names and addresses of all owners of land that abuts
the property proposed to be vacated.
(c) The legislative body shall hold a hearing on the petition within
thirty (30) days after it is received. The clerk of the legislative body
shall give notice of the petition and of the time and place of the
hearing:
(1) in the manner prescribed in IC 5-3-1; and
(2) by certified mail to each owner of land that abuts the property
proposed to be vacated.
The petitioner shall pay the expense of providing this notice.
(d) The hearing on the petition is subject to IC 5-14-1.5. At the
hearing, any person aggrieved by the proposed vacation may object to
it as provided by section 13 of this chapter.
(e) After the hearing on the petition, the legislative body may, by
ordinance, vacate the public way or public place. The clerk of the
legislative body shall furnish a copy of each vacation ordinance to the
county recorder for recording and to the county auditor.
(f) Within thirty (30) days after the adoption of a vacation
ordinance, any aggrieved person may appeal the ordinance to the
circuit court, superior court, or probate court of the county. The court
shall try the matter de novo and may award damages.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations:
18-5-10-44; 18-5-10-50 part.]
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.309, SEC.22. Amended by Acts
1981, P.L.46, SEC.6; Acts 1982, P.L.211, SEC.2; P.L.84-2016,
SEC.178.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1990–2017 · leading case:
Hoose v. Doody, 886 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Hoose v. Doody, 886 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 36-7-3-12; Smith v. City of Shelbyville, 462 N.”
Vranicar v. Bd. of Com'rs of Brown Cnty., 730 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 18× “The trial court order stated that Ind. Code § 36-7-3-12 (f) only grants jurisdiction for an appeal governing the vacation of a public way.”
AmRhein v. Eden, 779 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “On August 16, 1999, the Edens, along with Mark and Marsha Eden, filed with the Decatur County Board of Commissioners ("County Board") a Petition to Vacate Public Ways pursuant to Ind.Code § 36-7-3-12 to vacate the Alley.”
Nodine v. McNerney, 833 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 36-7-3-12 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Richardson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Owen Cnty., 965 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “Here, because the facts were undisputed and the trial court ruled on a pure question of law, namely, whether the Richardsons were aggrieved persons under Indiana Code section 36-7-3-12, we will apply a de novo standard of review as to the trial court’s determination that the…”
Town of Porter v. Brandstetter, 770 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 36-7-3-12. When the Town Council denied the Brandstetters' petition to vacate the public way, it was a legislative act.”
Roy Defries v. Bd. of Commissioners of Posey Cnty. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 16× “In December 2013, Remonstrators Flanders and Scott filed another objection to the proposed vacation of South Road, this time also asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petition due to its failure to hold a public hearing within thirty days as required by…”
Harris v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 551 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
“CODE § 36-7-3-12 (1988 Ed.). This statute states in pertinent part: "(a) Persons who: (1) own or are interested in any lots or parts of lots; and (2) want to vacate all or part of a public way or public place in or contiguous to those lots or parts of lots; may file a petition…”
Lewis J. Richardson & Laurel Richardson v. Bd. of Commissioners of Owen Cnty. (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “7 Here, because the facts were undisputed and the trial court ruled on a pure question of law, namely, whether the Richardsons were aggrieved persons under Indiana Code section 36-7-3-12, we will apply a de novo standard of review as to the trial court’s determination that the…”
Ind. Code § 36-7-3-12(c): 1 case
Roy Defries v. Bd. of Commissioners of Posey Cnty. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“In December 2013, Remonstrators Flanders and Scott filed another objection to the proposed vacation of South Road, this time also asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petition due to its failure to hold a public hearing within thirty days as required by…”
Ind. Code § 36-7-3-12(e): 1 case
Roy Defries v. Bd. of Commissioners of Posey Cnty. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“In December 2013, Remonstrators Flanders and Scott filed another objection to the proposed vacation of South Road, this time also asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petition due to its failure to hold a public hearing within thirty days as required by…”
Ind. Code § 36-7-3-12(f): 3 cases
Vranicar v. Bd. of Com'rs of Brown Cnty., 730 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“The trial court order stated that Ind. Code § 36-7-3-12 (f) only grants jurisdiction for an appeal governing the vacation of a public way.”
Richardson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Owen Cnty., 965 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Here, because the facts were undisputed and the trial court ruled on a pure question of law, namely, whether the Richardsons were aggrieved persons under Indiana Code section 36-7-3-12, we will apply a de novo standard of review as to the trial court’s determination that the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.