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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT