Does a citizens group that opposes a proposed development in its community have the right to challenge the project in court even if it doesn’t own adjacent property? And if law doesn’t give such a right, should it?

That was the crux of the legal arguments presented Thursday, as the Liberty Landowners Association squared off with the county and Northwest Indiana Health Systems, the entity owned by Community Health System that plans to build a new hospital at U.S. 6 and Ind. 49 in Liberty Township.

The county and hospital are asking the court to dismiss the suit brought by the LLA challenging the county’s rezoning granted for the new 225-bed hospital.

Porter County Circuit Court Judge Pro Tem James Sarkisian, sitting in for Judge Mary Harper, gave both sides 30 days to file their findings of fact. He pledged to make a ruling quickly after that.

The 30-day delay frustrated County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger, who noted that the court fight over the new hospital began more than a year ago. She said she expected the judge to issue a decision Thursday.

“It shouldn’t take 30 days,” she said, describing the issues involved as thoroughly briefed and researched and not convoluted.

But Martin Lucas, the attorney for the LLA, said he wasn’t at all surprised by the 30-day delay, since it’s customary for judges to give both sides that much time to prepare their final arguments. When Rinkenberger asked the judge if the time period could be shortened, Sarkisian said it would be up to both sides, and Martin opted for the 30-day period.

The main issue Thursday focused not on the LLA’s actual objection to the new Porter HospitalÐ and the group’s contention that the Porter County Commissioners violated county ordinances when they approved the necessary rezoning -- but whether the group even has standing to file suit.

Rinkenberger and the attorney representing the hospital, Michael Lewinski from the Ice Miller law firm in Indianapolis, cited case law that they said showed that LLA lacks standing and as such, the case should be dismissed.

Indiana courts, they said, have granted standing only to adjacent property owners or those aggrieved by a particular project who would suffer injury not felt by the community as a whole.

Lewinski said the court determinations on standing are a way to prevent unnecessary lawsuits, filed at any time and by anyone without cause.

He also said that neighboring property owners who would have had standing could have filed suit, but didn’t.

One of the cases Rinkenberger and Lewinski cited involved a ruling that an individual lacked standing because he or she didn’t own property within 150 feet of the proposed project.

“Our case is even stronger than that,” Lewinski said, noting that the LLA as a group doesn’t own any property at all.

Lucas didn’t disagree with the way that Rinkenberger and Lewinski described how courts have interpreted the legal definition of standing.

But he argued that the cases they cited don’t involve the same circumstances and that the LLA/hospital case involves larger, constitutional issues. If the law specifically says that groups that don’t own property do not have standing in all cases, “we are specifically challenging the impact as unconstitutional.”

Lucas argued that it’s clear that the rezoning approved by the commissioners was in conflict with the county’s Unified Development Ordinance. Citing the Constitution’s equal protection clause and the right of citizens to petition their government, he said if the LLA and its members are expected to follow the UDO, then they have the right to protest when someone else -- in this case, the hospital -- doesn’t follow the UDO.

He also raised the LLA’s argument that Porter County Commissioner John Evans had a conflict of interest when he voted with Commissioner President Robert Harper in support of the rezoning, since Evans’ wife works for Porter Hospital.

Rinkenberger objected to Lucas’ line of argument, saying that he was straying from the actual issue of “standing” and instead arguing the merits of the case. She said before the other issues are addressed, the question of whether the LLA even has standing must be answered first.

Sarkisian overruled Rinkenberger’s objection, on the grounds that Lucas’ arguments on the substantive issues involving the hospital rezoning could influence the issue of whether the LLA has standing.

At the same time, though, Sarkisian told Lucas that he needed to hear a more convincing argument that the LLA’s concerns about the rezoning do, in fact, give the group legal standing.

Rinkenberger disputed Lucas’ argument that Evans had a conflict of interest. She said Indiana case law is clear that a conflict exists only when there is an actual ownership interest involved; in this case, neither Evans nor his wife has an ownership of Porter hospital, so no conflict exists.

Even if there was a conflict, Rinkenberger argued, the standard for determining “standing” is the same. She called the conflict of interest argument a “red herring.”

Lucas again disagreed and said it’s not realistic to say that no conflict existed. Because Commissioner Carole Knoblock voted against the rezoning, Evans’ vote was necessary for the rezoning to go through on a 2-1 vote, he said.

Sarkisian’s role in the court hearing came as a surprise to both sides. Both Rinkenberger and Lucas said they didn’t know that a temporary judge would handle the case until just before the hearing. LLA earlier tried to get Harper to recuse herself from the case, on the grounds that she was once married to Commissioner Harper; the judge rejected LLA’s request.