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

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