ILNews

Order to demolish home reversed by Court of Appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A couple whose lakeside house was built at a different elevation than specified in the site development plan will not be able to call the wrecking crew yet.

Fishers residents Michael and Melody Bogan sued the developer of Lake Stonebridge subdivision and the homebuilder after their home’s lower level flooded twice. The site development plan called for the lower-level elevation of their home to be at 789 feet, but to accommodate a change the Bogans requested, the basement’s finished floor elevation was 788.04 feet.

After the trial court awarded the homeowners partial summary judgment against the homebuilder, Trinity Homes LLC, and the subdivision developers, Land Innovators L.P., and R.N. Thompson, the Bogans filed a motion requesting, in part, the court allow the home to be removed from the lot.

The trial court granted the motion but stayed the order pending appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in Land Innovators Company, L.P., R.N. Thompson, Trinity Homes, Inc. and Trinity Homes, LLC d/b/a Beazer Homes v. Michael L. Bogan and Melody A. Bogan, 29A05-1306-PL-308. The COA ruled the trial court’s decision was improper without the presentation of evidence.

On appeal, Land Innovators, Thompson and Trinity Homes argued other alternatives besides removal of the home are available to remedy the problem.  

“Whether the appellants’ contentions on this point are correct is a matter we need not address,” Judge Margret Robb wrote for the court. “However, we agree that the appellants should have the opportunity to present evidence regarding other potential remedies and that the trial court must make a proper determination that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case.”

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the Bogans on liability for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract and breach of covenants against Trinity. The COA also upheld summary judgment to the Bogans for breach of covenants against Land Innovators and Thompson.  

In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Bogans’ claim of constructive fraud against Trinity and their claim of negligence against the developers. Finally, the COA affirmed the denial of the developers’ claim for indemnification.  



 
 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT