ILNews

Court erred, twice rejected settlement in covenant case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in denying a homeowners association’s request for an injunction against a resident who parked a trailer on her lot. The court then twice rejected joint settlement requests, according to a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The COA sent Avon Trails Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Kellie Homeier, 32A01-1307-PL-312, back to Hendricks Circuit Judge Jeffrey V. Boles with instructions to enter the settlement agreement the parties reached after Avon Trails appealed Boles’ denial of a preliminary injunction the association sought to enforce a restrictive covenant that applied to members of Avon Trails.

Judge Elaine Brown noted “the peculiar procedural posture of this case” in which the court denied the injunction request, which the court said was clearly erroneous, then “on multiple occasions refused the parties’ overtures” to settle. Homeier agreed to abide by terms of the covenant and Avon Trails would drop the case and any claim for court costs or legal fees.

“Instead of accepting the proposed settlement expressed in the Joint Motion to vacate its order, enter a permanent injunction, and end any proceedings at the appellate court level, the court in its CCS entries on May 3 and July 1, 2013, opted to leave in place its interpretation of the Covenant as expressed in its Order," Brown wrote for the panel that also included Chief Judge Margret Robb and Judge Michael Barnes.
 
"It was error for the court to refuse to accept the parties’ Joint Motion," Brown wrote. "We remand with instructions to the court to vacate its original order and enter an order substituting the applicable language of the Joint Motion."

 

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