City of Whiting v. City of East Chicago & Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

359 N.E.2d 536, 266 Ind. 12, 1977 Ind. LEXIS 360
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 10, 1977
Docket676S169
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 359 N.E.2d 536 (City of Whiting v. City of East Chicago & Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Whiting v. City of East Chicago & Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 359 N.E.2d 536, 266 Ind. 12, 1977 Ind. LEXIS 360 (Ind. 1977).

Opinion

DeBruler, J.

This appeal arises from consolidated actions by appellees, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company (Youngstown) and the City of East Chicago (East Chicago) against appellant City of Whiting (Whiting), concerning the corporate boundaries of Whiting and East Chicago. Youngstown operates a steel manufacturing plant on approximately 150 acres of land in Lake County, Indiana. This land was reclaimed by Youngstown by means of landfills beginning in 1948. Under Ind. Code §§ 4-18-13-1 to -3 (Burns 1974), Youngstown received title to this land by patent from the governor.

Prior to Youngstown’s reclamation of the submerged land, the Lake Michigan shore ran from northwest to southeast through sections 9 and 16 of Township 37 North, Range 9 West of the Second Principal Meridian established by the United States Government rectangular survey in 1836. In 1896 and 1897, respectively, East Chicago and Whiting (then a town) annexed territory along the lake shore east and west, respectively, of the intersection of the shore with the boundary between sections 9 and 16 (section 9 is directly north of section 16, see Appendix).

Youngstown began conducting landfills from the shore in 1948, resulting in the extension of the shoreline outward in an irregular bulge through parts of sections 9 and 16; the filling progressed steadily until 1968. Youngstown began building the major buildings of its steel mill on the reclaimed *14 land in 1957, -when construction of the seamless tube complex was begun.

Until 1968 it was apparently the impression of Youngstown, East Chicago, and Lake County, State, and Federal officials that the corporate boundary between Whiting and East Chicago was extended over the landfill along the north-south midline of section 9. This boundary was shown on maps prepared or used by the Lake County Commissioners, Surveyor, Auditor and Plan Commission; by the Indiana State Highway Commission; and by the United States Geological Survey. Such municipal services as the area east of the midline received were provided by East Chicago whose roads provided the only public access to the Youngstown plant. East Chicago issued building permits, monitored air pollution, and licensed contractors on the land. The area was included upon the zoning maps of East Chicago and excluded from the voting and zoning maps of Whiting. Finally, taxes on the real and personal property in the area were assessed on the assumption that it lay within East Chicago, which included the value of such property in its tax base, and issued bonds in reliance on the assumption that the property was available for taxation.

In 1968, Whiting’s Common Council adopted Ordinance No. 1115, defining Whiting’s corporate boundaries. Part of Youngstown’s property (the disputed territory) was within the boundaries so defined. Youngstown and East Chicago filed separate actions to have Ordinance No. 1115 declared invalid and to restrain Whiting from annexing Youngstown’s property. In 1970, while these actions were pending, Whiting adopted Ordinances No. 1123 and 1124, which respectively declared that the disputed territory was within Whiting, and purported to annex that territory.

In October of 1974, these cases were consolidated and tried without a jury. The trial court made findings of fact discussed below and made conclusions of law which substantially held that:

*15 1. The Whiting-East Chicago boundary over the Youngstown landfill was uncertain.

2. The corporate boundary of Whiting does not extend ten miles into Lake Michigan to the state boundary, as claimed by Whiting Ordinances No. 1115, 1128, and 1124, and that those ordinances are void.

3. Whiting had acquiesced in the section 9 midline boundary for so long a time that such boundary would be deemed the true Whiting-East Chicago boundary.

4. The section 9 midline had become the Whiting-East Chicago boundary by “fixed practice” and the disputed land a “de facto” part of East Chicago.

5. Whiting had implicitly agreed to the section 9 midline boundary by performing acts recognizing it.

6. Whiting was estopped to deny that the section 9 mid-line was the Whiting-East Chicago boundary.

7. The extension of Whiting’s boundaries to include the disputed property would deprive Youngstown of its property without compensation contrary to the Fifth Amendment.

8. Ordinances No. 1123 and 1124 were without effect.

9. The midline of section 9 constituted the Whiting-East Chicago boundary.

10. Annexation of the disputed territory by Whiting is not proper because the prerequisites for annexation are absent.

Whiting filed its motion to correct errors, containing 85 specifications of error. The motion attacked most of the trial court’s findings as unsupported by sufficient evidence, all of the court’s conclusions as erroneous, and the judgment as contrary to law. The motion to correct errors was overruled in its entirety. Whiting perfected its appeal to the Court of Appeals, and the appeal was transferred to this Court without decision by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Ind. R. Ap. P. 4(A) (10), because it involves “a substantial question of law of great public importance and that an emergency exists for a speedy determination.”

*16 Whiting asserts that the trial court’s judgment is contrary to law insofar as it holds that:

1. Whiting’s acquiescence in the section 9 midline boundary established that boundary between Whiting and East Chicago;

2. Whiting is estopped to claim that the disputed land is within its boundaries.

3. Whiting’s 1970 annexation ordinance (No. 1124) is invalid. We believe that the trial court’s “fixed practice” and “de facto part” conclusions are simply alternative phrasings of the acquiescence theory. The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed if it was correct in holding the 1970 annexation invalid and either in holding that Whiting is estopped to claim the disputed territory or that Whiting’s acquiescence established the midline boundary.

I.

Whiting’s position on the location of the Whiting-East Chicago boundary across the land reclaimed by Youngstown is that the boundary extended perpendicular to the general line of the pre-existing shore as the land was filled, by operation of law, and without the need for any action by Whiting. Whiting asserts that the judicial recognition of any other boundary amounts to a change in Whiting’s territory which may only be effected by the Legislature.

The rules governing apportionment of land formed by natural accretion or artificial fill among adjacent riparian private landowners are diverse. Extension of the private boundary perpendicular to the shoreline is one of several methods mentioned by authorities as being used to effect an equitable division of the added land. 3 AMERICAN LAW OF PROPERTY § 15.31 at 866-67 (1952); 7 POWELL, REAL PROPERTY ¶ 986 at 618 (1976); BURBY, REAL PROPERTY § 19 at 52 (3d ed. 1965). 1

*17

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jason Tibbs v. State of Indiana
59 N.E.3d 1005 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016)
Whitacre v. State
629 N.E.2d 1236 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1994)
City of Hobart v. Chidester
596 N.E.2d 1374 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1992)
Lenard v. Adams
425 N.E.2d 211 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1981)
Balock v. Town of Melstone
607 P.2d 545 (Montana Supreme Court, 1980)
Yerke v. Batman
376 N.E.2d 1211 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
359 N.E.2d 536, 266 Ind. 12, 1977 Ind. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-whiting-v-city-of-east-chicago-youngstown-sheet-tube-co-ind-1977.