Background
South Bend, acting at the direction of its mayor, filed a condemnation action in October 2024 against property owned by Argos 316, LLC. The parcel sat inside a redevelopment project area established by the South Bend Redevelopment Commission. Portage Township had already contracted to buy the parcel and completed the acquisition shortly after the City sued. The Township and an easement holder, 350 Columbia Street, LLC, intervened and challenged the taking.
The objection turned on Indiana Code section 36-7-14-20(a). That provision says that when the legislative body of the unit that created a redevelopment department considers eminent domain necessary in a redevelopment project area, the body must adopt a resolution making that determination and directing its attorney to sue. South Bend’s Common Council had not adopted such a resolution. The objectors argued that the omission made the action unauthorized.
The Marshall Circuit Court rejected the objection. It viewed the statutory procedure as one permissible route for condemnation, not the exclusive route, and concluded that the City could rely on the broad eminent-domain authority Indiana law generally grants local-government units. The objectors appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed. Judge Vaidik’s majority held that section 36-7-14-20 gives the unit’s legislative body exclusive authority to invoke eminent domain for property in a redevelopment project area. Because the Common Council did not authorize South Bend’s action, the trial court should have sustained the objection.
The panel found the provision ambiguous when read alone. The objectors reasonably read its specified legislative procedure as excluding action by other officials. The City reasonably responded that the statute describes what happens if a legislative body wants to condemn but never expressly withdraws the general authority of other city officials. The court therefore considered the larger redevelopment statute rather than treating either isolated reading as conclusive.
That statutory scheme assigns coordinated roles to a redevelopment commission, plan commission, and legislative body. The redevelopment commission establishes the project area, identifies property needed for the project, and first attempts a negotiated purchase. If negotiation fails and condemnation becomes necessary, section 36-7-14-20 supplies the next step: a vote by the unit’s legislative body. Reading the chapter as a whole, the majority concluded that the legislature placed this consequential decision with the legislative body even though other local officials ordinarily possess broad condemnation powers.
Chief Judge Tavitas concurred in the result. She was reluctant to declare the statute ambiguous when neither party had taken that position, but agreed that the lack of legislative authorization required reversal. The court did not reach the intervenors’ remaining objections.
Key Takeaways
- A city, county, or other covered unit cannot condemn property within a redevelopment project area solely through executive or administrative direction.
- The unit’s legislative body must determine that condemnation is necessary, adopt the statutory resolution, and direct counsel to file the action.
- General local-government eminent-domain authority does not displace the more specific procedure in Indiana’s redevelopment chapter.
- Practitioners should confirm both the parcel’s redevelopment-area status and the legislative record before filing or defending a condemnation case.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a clear line between ordinary municipal condemnation authority and takings tied to an Indiana redevelopment project area. A redevelopment commission’s plans, or a mayor’s direction, are not a substitute for a council vote. That gives affected owners and interest holders a concrete threshold defense and makes the enabling resolution a central item in early diligence.
For municipal counsel, the safest sequence is to document the commission’s acquisition efforts, obtain the legislative body’s necessity determination, and ensure the resolution expressly directs the contemplated suit. For property owners, the holding supports an early statutory objection before valuation issues dominate the case. Because the panel treated authority as structural, not a minor procedural defect, compliance should be established before the complaint is filed.