Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
SYRACUSE - The town of Syracuse has been declared the owner of riparian rights to Syracuse Lake, giving it access to the water and the right to install piers and docks.
Special Judge Douglas B. Morton for the Kosciusko Circuit Court made the declaratory judgment Friday in the case Ginger Abbs et al vs. Town of Syracuse et al. This lawsuit, 2 years in court, sought those rights of access for property owners who live adjacent to town streets and alleys that end at Syracuse Lake.
In his decision, Judge Morton wrote, "The court declares that the dedication of a right-of-way to the public, as appears in the original plat of the Town of Syracuse and the Strombeck and Weaver's Second Addition to the Town of Syracuse, includes the grant of riparian rights to the public at the ends of the streets and alleys, including the right of access to the water and the right to place piers and docks." This determination of the early platters' intent followed instructions from an appeals court and formed the basis of his judgment.
He added that by custom and usage to date, the placement of piers and docks has been self-regulating, and any effort to modify this self-regulation can come only from municipal or governmental authority.
Judge Morton also dismissed six defendants from the case citing lack of evidence why they should be listed. Claims against other defendants, property owners near Syracuse Lake who were shown to have established and/or used piers on a regular basis at street ends, were found moot in light of the judgment. These residents used the rights-of-way under the thinking that the town was owner and had always allowed the practice, with which the court agreed.
The court also declared, "The plaintiff lot owners are not entitled to close or in any way limit public use of the rights-of-way abutting Syracuse Lake." Costs of the action were charged to the plaintiff.
This case, which came to symbolize tradition at odds with shoreline growth, began in April 1994. Abbs and some of her neighbors claimed they were bothered by noise and disturbances from numerous people using the town accesses. These lakefront property owners filed a request for declaratory judgment finding them to be owners of riparian rights at these public rights-of-way based upon the notion that they owned fee simple title of one-half of the public right-of-way.
Judge Morton did in fact find the plaintiffs to be owners of fee simple title, but determined that intended use took precedence.
As the case lingered, other related suits emerged. The Department of Natural Resources became involved after complaints were filed against some pier owners. The ruling has yet to be made by Kosciusko Circit Court Judge Rex Reed in the matters of permits for installing piers and piers altering the shorelines.
Another case, Abbs vs. Town of Syracuse, initially cited violation of civil rights when the town began a paving project on Benton Street, right at the water's edge. This property is adjacent to Abbs' property, and she claimed the town was paving to annoy her. While the original case was dismissed in federal court, a similar suit is pending in circuit court.
The 2-year history of this case includes a Dec. 6, 1994, decision in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed an appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals Opinion reversed Morton's opinion, but the case never made it as far as the Indiana Supreme Court; the request was denied by a vote of 3 to 2. The appeals court sent the matter back to circuit court to determine "intent of the public right-of-way," which is the basis of his current decision.
As before, the plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal.
Attorneys include Stephen R. Snyder for the plaintiffs, Robert Reed for the town and Paul Stoelting for the individual defendants. Attorneys from Ice, Miller, Donadio and Ryan, Indianapolis, were recruited on behalf of the town. Jodie Miner of that firm wrote the brief submitted to Judge Morton.
Concluding his findings, Judge Morton wrote that even if his determination is found in error by an appeals court, he believes the defendants have proven their defenses of prescriptive easement, which means that the practice has been going on a very long time, and the lack of complaints over these years.
