John S. Paniaguas, et al, v. Endor, Inc., et al. - 8/28/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  August 28, 2013 
10:30 AM  EST

10:30 a.m.45A03-1205-PL-244.  This case arises from a dispute between Appellant homeowners, who own homes in Unit 1 of a subdivision located in Crown Point, Indiana that were built by an initial developer, and subsequent Appellee homeowners, who purchased homes in the same subdivision, some of which were in Unit 1 and some of which were in Unit 2, that were built by a second developer.  Appellant homeowners alleged that Appellee homeowners’ homes were in violation of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants and requested injunctive relief and damages.

 After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Appellee homeowners’ homes were in compliance with the restrictive covenants, and Appellant homeowners now appeal, arguing that:  (1) the trial court erred in determining that they lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenants against certain homeowners in Unit 2 of the subdivision based on the court’s finding that the restrictive covenants only applied to Unit 1 of the subdivision; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting minutes of the Architectural Control Committee under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; (3) the evidence presented failed to support the trial court’s finding that all of the homes built by the second developer complied with the restrictive covenants; and (4) the trial court’s findings were deficient under Indiana Trial Rule 52.  Appellee homeowners cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in not granting them attorney fees because Appellant homeowners’ claims were frivolous.

Back to Events
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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT