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. 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