ILNews

Owner of Anderson location yanks suit against Motel 6

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Owners of an Anderson hotel that has operated as a Motel 6 since its construction in 1974 – but soon won’t –  withdrew a federal lawsuit Tuesday that claimed the national chain had not maintained the site “as a first class motel” required under its decades-old lease.

The suit initially filed in state court in February sought an adverse possession order of the motel along Scatterfield Road off Interstate 69 at Exit 226. The suit claimed the facility didn’t measure up to prototypes and improved design standards the chain announced in press releases in 2008 and afterward.

Motel 6 removed the suit to federal court, where Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch presided over a preliminary hearing before this week denying from the bench plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction entitling plaintiffs to take possession of the leased property.

Lynch “called this an overreach by plaintiffs of significant proportion,” said Brian S. Jones, a Bose McKinney Evans partner representing Motel 6. “We are obviously pleased with the court’s decision on this.”

The case in District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, is 5810 Scatterfield Road, LP v. Motel 6 Operating LP, 1:14-cv-00327.

The plaintiffs, a Nevada limited partnership, sought to gain possession of the hotel under the ejection and quiet title statute, I.C. 32-30-3, which Jones said typically is applied as a remedy when a tenant isn’t paying rent. That wasn’t the case here; he said Motel 6 has paid as required under the lease, and no such claim is made in the complaint.

Jones said Motel 6 also strongly disagreed with the suit’s contention that it hadn’t maintained the site as a first-class facility. Jones said the suit essentially requested a complete renovation.

“This is a 40-year-old lease, and a lot of the older leases in some industries use the term ‘first class’ without deciding what that means,” Jones said. He said Lynch also noted the term in the lease was inherently ambiguous.

Wooden & McLaughlin LLP partner Matthew Adolay, who represented 5810 Scatterfield, did not immediately return a message seeking comment Wednesday.

Jones said the record showed that the landlord had no complaints about Motel 6 until the chain notified owners in 2010 that it would not renew its lease and planned to vacate the property when the lease expires this year at the end of October.

Until then, Motel 6 is operating two hotels in Anderson nearly across the street from each other. The chain has leased and rebranded a property that formerly operated as a Fairfield Inn. That site will continue to operate as a Motel 6 after the lease with 5810 Scatterfield expires, Jones said.

Lynch didn’t rule on a defense argument that 5810 Scatterfield lacked standing to bring the suit, Jones said.

The defense claimed that the owner of record is a California partnership called 5810 Scatterfield that was voluntarily terminated some years back, and there was no evidence filed regarding assignment of rights before termination, Jones said. The 5810 Scatterfield LP that brought the suit was an entity organized as a Nevada limited partnership some years later.


 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT