ILNews

Judges order more proceedings in low-income apartment tax credit case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding claims made against apartment management company Flaherty & Collins in a complaint alleging fraud and other charges dealing with renting apartments to people who did not qualify based on income requirements, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered more proceedings on the case.

In Flaherty & Collins, Inc. v. BBR-Vision I, L.P., and New Castle Realty, LLC, 49A05-1111-PL-569, F&C entered into a management agreement with BBR-Vision I to manage Autumn Oaks in New Castle as an independent contractor. BBR owns the complex, in which a majority of the apartments are designated as low-income units, qualifying them for tax credits under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. New Castle Realty and BBR had a partnership agreement.

F&C hired several on-site employees, including a manager, and F&C was required to obtain income certifications and verify them before renting to someone. In September 2001, F&C discovered that a previous onsite manager may have forged a resident’s income documents from his employer to make him eligible to live in the low-income apartment. Other instances were discovered of people in apartments they did not financially qualify to live in. BBR was informed in November of the issues, which were a concern because BBR and its members could lose tax credits if the IRS conducted an audit and demanded a recapture.

In January 2002, BBR fired F&C as manager. In April of that year, BBR and NCR sued F&C alleging breach of contract, negligent supervision, indemnity, fraud and civil recovery of treble damages by a crime victim pursuant to the Crime Victims Statute.

On interlocutory appeal, F&C appealed the trial court’s ruling that evidence shows F&C’s conduct violated the Crime Victims Statute, that NCR had standing to assert its claim as a third-party beneficiary, and that the indemnity clause in the management agreement between F&C and BBR required F&C to pay BBR's and NCR’s attorney fees.

The COA reversed the trial court’s interpretation that Section 12(a) of the agreement requires F&C to pay attorney fees for first-party actions. The language of that section doesn’t create an exception to the general rule that an indemnity clause creates liability to pay only for third-party actions, Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote.

The appeals court also found the trial court erred in making findings that effectively granted summary judgment to BBR and NCR on the issue of whether they could recover damages under the Crime Victims Statute because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the F&C’s employee’s action or BBR and NCR’s inaction cause any pecuniary loss to the companies. It also reversed what was effectively summary judgment on the issue of whether F&C committed deception.

The judges affirmed the decision that NCR had standing in this action. The partnership agreement between NCR and BBR and management agreement between F&C and BBR establish that the parties clearly intended to benefit NCR and that the duty imposed on F&C was in favor of NCR. NCR’s receipt of money and tax benefits depended on F&C’s performance of its responsibilities under the partnership and management agreements, Darden wrote.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.
 

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