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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT