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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT