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. 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