ILNews

Homeowners must follow health codes

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Owners of houses or mobile homes they construct themselves still must follow Indiana health codes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The appellate court overturned a trial court's ruling that a section of Indiana code exempted certain homeowners from obtaining a permit for septic systems.

At issue in Washington County Health Department and Mike Haddon v. Jeff and Robin White, No. 88A04-0703-CV-126, is whether the Whites' mobile home, which had a discharge pipe running from the bottom of it to the ground, was exempt from health-code and permit requirements.

Mike Haddon, a Washington County health officer, noticed two mobile homes on a property owned by the Whites in an unincorporated portion of Washington County. He saw a waste discharge pipe coming out of the bottom of one of the homes and knew the Whites had not gotten a permit for a septic system.

Haddon sent a letter to the Whites asking to inspect their property, pursuant to Indiana Code, to check for conditions that may foster or transmit diseases. The Whites refused inspection and filed a petition for injunctive relief that WCHD not be allowed to search their property without a valid search warrant. They also argued under Indiana Code 36-7-8-3(d), they weren't required to have any kind of permit for their mobile homes.

Haddon replied with a Notice and Order to Comply letter to the Whites, citing they had committed three health-code violations. WCHD also filed a counterclaim for injunctive relief, which the trial court denied. The court ruled the Whites were exempt to any permits under I.C. 36-7-8-3(d) part of Indiana building codes, which states, "an ordinance adopted under this section does not apply to private homes that are built by individuals and used for their own occupancy."

Subsection (d) allows an individual to be exempt from building codes for unincorporated areas of a county, as long as the owner built the home him or herself for his or her own use. The Whites contend that even though they did not construct the mobile home themselves, additional construction was required, plumbing and electricity must be hooked up, and a concrete foundation poured. However, wrote Senior Judge George Hoffman, the Whites never produced any evidence they did this work themselves.

Because the Whites didn't build the mobile homes placed on their property, subsection (d) does not apply to them and they are required to comply with health-code regulations, specifically Indiana Code 410 IAC 6-8.1-33, which required them to obtain a permit for a sewage disposal system prior to putting the mobile homes on their property.

Judge Hoffman wrote that subsection (d) is not a global exception that exempts individuals from building codes and health codes. The trial court erred in concluding anyone who satisfies subsection (d) is exempt from the health codes and it erred in denying WCHD's petition for injunctive relief. The case is remanded to the trial court.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT