ILNews

COA: Rentals not restricted by covenants

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined today the rental of cabins in a subdivision was allowed under its restrictive covenants because the rental property was for "residential use."

At issue in William Applegate, et al. v. Earl F. Colucci, et al., No. 62A05-0802-CV-112, was whether Earl Colucci violated three of the subdivision's restrictive covenants when he built cabins on his lots and rented them through a business he maintained on one of the lots. Applegate and other landowners filed a complaint against Colucci and Vince Hubert - who used Colucci's company to rent his cabin - seeking monetary damages and to enjoin them from any activity that violates the covenants.

The trial court enjoined Colucci for violating paragraph 2 of the covenant, which says no lot should be sub-divided any smaller than the original size, because he had placed multiple cabins on one lot. The trial court found in favor of Colucci in regards to the "interpretation" of paragraph 4, which states no commercial business shall be carried on upon any parcel and "nothing herein contained shall prevent the leasing or renting of property or structures for residential use."

The landowners argued the renting of cabins was a commercial business and violates paragraph 4. This exact issue is one of first impression, so the appellate court turned to past cases dealing with what constitutes residential use as guidance. It used Stewart v. Jackson, 635 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), and Lewis-Levett v. Day, 875 N.E.2d 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) - both of which dealt with day cares in neighborhoods with restrictive covenants - to determine the short-term rental of Colucci's cabins constitute a residential use.

Also, the covenants don't expressly prohibit the short-term rental of the lots in the neighborhood and appear to allow any type of rental as long as it is for residential use, wrote Judge James Kirsch.

"The people who rent Colucci's cabins use the structures for eating, sleeping, and other typical activities associated with a residence or dwelling place," he wrote. "Although we recognize that the renters' occupation of the cabins is only on a temporary basis and the definition of residential seems to contemplate a more permanent presence, we find that this definition is at odds with the covenant language explicitly allowing the rental or lease of property."

Whether or not Colucci's maintenance of a real estate office to support the cabin rentals on one of the lots violates paragraphs 1 and 4 is a material question of fact. The appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of the landowners on this issue and remands for further proceedings.

The trial court also erred in entering the injunction against Colucci based on paragraph 2 because although Colucci had built separate structures on the same lot, there was no evidence he was planning on dividing the lots into separate tracts of land to sell, wrote the judge.

The appellate court also denied requests from both parties for attorney fees at this time.

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT