ILNews

COA holds volunteer caretaker not entitled to damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s finding that a man was not entitled to damages for taking care of a blighted property.

In Robert Holland, A Concerned Citizen for the Redevelopment of Gary v. Richard Steele, Barbara Steele, First Midwest Bank, As Successor Trustee By Way of Merger to Bank Calumet, N.A., et al., No. 45A03-1102-PL-84, Robert Holland raised 13 issues on appeal, which the COA found did not correspond with the substance of the argument section of his brief.

Holland rented a home in Gary, Ind., on a block where many homes became vacant due to foreclosure between 2002 and 2009. Holland claimed he had made improvements to a nearby vacant home totaling $75,000, yet was unable to provide documentation of those expenses.

On May 29, 2009, Holland, identifying himself as a concerned citizen for the redevelopment of Gary, filed his Complaint for Foreclosure of Lien for Costs of Abating Nuisance and the Decrease in Value of Property. He claimed the prior owners of the home were liable for his expenses. First Midwest Bank filed a motion to intervene because it was the title-holder on the vacant home.

The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment and declared a common law lien filed by Holland to be invalid. The court denied his motion to correct error and motion for relief from judgment and awarded attorney fees in the amount of $400. The COA affirmed the trial court on those decisions.

The COA denied a cross-appeal from the bank requesting appellate attorney fees, holding that the bank did not properly upkeep the property and that inaction gave rise to the litigation of Holland’s complaint.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT