ILNews

Home day care presents first-impression

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruled on a case of first impression involving whether a licensed child care facility constitutes residential or commercial use of the owner's residence.

In Jeannie Lewis-Levett v. Richard D. Day and Martha A. Day, 50A03-0705-CV-199, Lewis-Levett appealed the trial court's summary judgment ruling in favor of the Days. As owners and operators of Golfview Estates, the Days recorded covenants applicable to the lots there, which prevents buildings in the neighborhood being used for "any trade, business, manufacture or profession." Lewis-Levett began a licensed day care in her home in the neighborhood, caring for up to 12 children during the week. On her tax forms, she indicated 60 percent of her home is used for the day care.

The Days filed a complaint requesting a temporary and permanent injunction against Lewis-Levett's day care in her residence and attorney fees; Lewis-Levett filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Days and awarded attorney fees.

Lewis-Levett argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment enjoining her from running the licensed day care in her home because a licensed day care is residential use of her home. She cited Stewart v. Jackson, 635 N. E. 2d 186, 193, where the Court of Appeals held that the operation of an unlicensed home day care constituted residential use and did not violate the restrictive covenants of its neighborhood.

The question of whether a licensed day care constitutes residential use is a matter of first impression for the court because Stewart is limited to unlicensed day care in homes. In Stewart, the court examined the number of children in the day care, its income, and the increase of traffic to determine whether it was residential use.

In this case, Lewis-Levett cares for 12 children, which means she could have 12 vehicles coming and going from her home throughout the day - more than normal for the neighborhood. She also uses 60 percent of her home for the business. Because the Indiana legislature has enacted extensive regulation of licensed day care homes that have more than six children, it shows them to be commercial enterprises.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment enjoining Lewis-Levett from operating a licensed home day care. Public policy in favor of home day care is not without limits; although public policy favors home day care, such policy isn't violated by the enforcement of the restrictive covenants in this case, Judge Edward Najam wrote for the majority.

The Days cross-appealed the trial court ruling, saying it erred in not enjoining Lewis-Levett from having any type of child care in her home. The evidence showed she ran a licensed day care, so the trial court granted the relief requested in the amended complaint because the trial court did not have the case of "any" day care before it when ruling. The Court of Appeals denied the Day's cross appeal.
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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT