ILNews

Legally preserving history

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Leaky roofs, broken windows, cracked pavement, or dangerous tree limbs are red flags indicating neglect of a piece of property or real estate.

But while the age of a building, and whether it is considered to have historic significance, might add a new level of legal nuance to disputes surrounding the preservation and upkeep of properties, some Hoosier lawyers and preservationists say that “preserving history” does not typically drive the legal remedy. Real estate, property negligence, and zoning laws are often utilized to preserve, restore, or protect sites having historic significance.

negligent-15col The Lodge apartment building at 829 N. Pennsylvania Ave. in downtown Indianapolis was built in 1905, and now it’s one of two historic sites the city legal department has filed a suit against because the owner let it become a public nuisance.. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“Just because something is historic, that doesn’t mean there’s any protection locally,” said Indianapolis attorney Tom Engle, who represents Indiana Landmarks and handles historic preservation cases throughout the state. “There’s some historic preservation statutes that can be used, but most often it comes down to building codes and local ordinances that make the difference on these properties that are vacant or not kept up.”

One of the most effective tools that Indiana Landmarks pioneered to help save historic sites is the use of receiverships, according to both Engle and Mark Dollase, the organization’s vice president of preservation services. They were first used almost a decade ago and have been used occasionally since then. The court can assign a receiver to determine and make improvements on a property, and the receiver then returns to the property owner for potential reimbursement, allowing the original property owner to retain the title. If that does not happen, the organization can work to get that deed through sheriff’s sale for ownership or resale down the road.

“Receiverships generally turn out the way you might want them to, but it never moves quickly enough,” Dollase said. “So as a result, you face market changes and what was true for a real estate sale when you started isn’t necessarily where you end up.”

That happened the first time the organization used a receivership about eight years ago to repair a historic building in Indianapolis. The structure collapsed from the weight of a snowstorm before Indiana Landmarks could preserve the building, he said. The group has used the receivership mechanism in other locations throughout the city, as well as sites in New Castle and one currently pending in South Bend.

“It’s a great tool, you just have to know it will take a while to get to other end. You have to plan an out, knowing who the end user might be from the start and if it’ll be worth investing the time and money when you might not get money back,” he said. “For us, that monetary loss can come with the knowledge that we’re meeting our mission and so it might be worth it.”

Aside from receiverships, Engle and Dollase said they have used architectural and conservation easements to offer protection for owners who want to retain a title to a property but also want the historic preservation protection. The easements typically result in a loss in value, but that can be worthwhile to preserve the property in the long run.

Targeting neglect

In Indianapolis, the city prosecutor filed two lawsuits April 11 against a pair of property owners who are accused of allowing their historically designated properties to become public eyesores or community dangers.

One suit targets James E. Chalfant and Chadwick Partners Inc., owners of the 1925 Chadwick Building at 1005 N. Pennsylvania St. A two-alarm fire inside the vacant 31,000 square foot building in January gutted what was left, and the city demolished the building following that fire. This was at least the third fire in the past decade, and the city asserts this final destructive fire and subsequent demolition was a “foreseeable result of unreasonable neglect” by the owners.

The second suit filed that same day targets Caroline Briggs, owner of the 1905 Lodge apartment building at 829 N. Pennsylvania St., on allegations that she unreasonably caused community damage by allowing that building to “become dilapidated, harbor vermin, serve as a temporary residence for vagrants, and contribute to blight.” As a result of those conditions, the health and safety of residents has been put in danger and the city has had to spend money in responding to those conditions, the suit says.

Specifically, the suits use Indiana Code § 36-7-11.1-12 in saying the owners failed to maintain real estate in a good state of repair and a safe condition and that both are nuisances. IC §32-30-6 allows for a civil action to abate or enjoin a nuisance. The Briggs suit also delves into various counts based on local code requiring that windows, exterior doors, and other parts of a historic building be adequately maintained.

Both filings are part of the city’s broader effort to crack down on negligent property owners. It is a joint effort by Indianapolis code enforcement and legal officials as the city acts as the enforcement official on behalf of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, which has jurisdiction over the two properties in the St. Joseph Historic District. In the Chadwick suit, the city wants to recoup the cost of emergency demolition and punitive damages, while in the Briggs suit, it is requesting injunctive relief, fines, and punitive damages.

“Repeat citations and enforcement actions against Briggs have failed to produce any improvements, and the deteriorated condition of Mr. Chalfant’s property unreasonably harmed the city and the citizens it serves by contributing to urban blight,” said city prosecutor Helen Marchal in the Office of Corporation Counsel.

This type of litigation isn’t used commonly, Marchal said, but it’s a resource that is always available if someone doesn’t resolve a negligent property issue or work with city officials to avoid it becoming a nuisance or danger.

Indianapolis attorney Bryce Bennett with Riley Bennett & Egloff found the city’s approach interesting, particularly in the demolished Chadwick situation where Indianapolis is attempting to recover money spent on combating the recent fire and building demolition. He worked in the 1990s with then-mayor and attorney Stephen Goldsmith to first use that legal move as a way to maintain properties and neighborhoods.

“We pioneered the whole idea of using public nuisance laws to go after absentee landlords and gain control of those properties for the community’s benefit,” he said. “That was very effective, and it sounds as though they’re using those same laws now and expanding it to recover money damages.”

In his legal work in these areas, Bennett pointed to his representation on the city market and other local historic preservation projects that delve into these many real estate and building issues.

“This is not the most exciting area of law, but there’s a lot of litigation that falls into it. You usually do have administrative remedies locally, but we found that litigation was more direct and effective and the most cost-effective.”

For those looking at the larger historical preservation picture, the end result of these lawsuits and legal challenges often isn’t the broader issue at play.

Dollase and Engle said they don’t see many lawsuits relating to historic preservation. They added that Indiana Landmarks tries to be judicious about using litigation, though it isn’t afraid to turn to the courts if needed.

“You don’t have a lot of caselaw in Indiana on these types of issues, since most of the time that’s not something that would go up on appeal,” Engle said. “That’s because it’s not about winning in court, and usually it’s not just a court battle that saves a historic building – it’s what comes after that in moving, demolishing, or adaptively reusing that property. Court may be a starting point, but it’s usually not the end of it.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Historic Research
    save for the SJHN files
  • begin the new urbanism
    The best book out there on land use is "Geography of Nowhere" by James Howard Kunstler. Read it and weep! What a disaster our communities have become since ww II.

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT