ILNews

Owner of Anderson location yanks suit against Motel 6

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Owners of an Anderson hotel that has operated as a Motel 6 since its construction in 1974 – but soon won’t –  withdrew a federal lawsuit Tuesday that claimed the national chain had not maintained the site “as a first class motel” required under its decades-old lease.

The suit initially filed in state court in February sought an adverse possession order of the motel along Scatterfield Road off Interstate 69 at Exit 226. The suit claimed the facility didn’t measure up to prototypes and improved design standards the chain announced in press releases in 2008 and afterward.

Motel 6 removed the suit to federal court, where Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch presided over a preliminary hearing before this week denying from the bench plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction entitling plaintiffs to take possession of the leased property.

Lynch “called this an overreach by plaintiffs of significant proportion,” said Brian S. Jones, a Bose McKinney Evans partner representing Motel 6. “We are obviously pleased with the court’s decision on this.”

The case in District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, is 5810 Scatterfield Road, LP v. Motel 6 Operating LP, 1:14-cv-00327.

The plaintiffs, a Nevada limited partnership, sought to gain possession of the hotel under the ejection and quiet title statute, I.C. 32-30-3, which Jones said typically is applied as a remedy when a tenant isn’t paying rent. That wasn’t the case here; he said Motel 6 has paid as required under the lease, and no such claim is made in the complaint.

Jones said Motel 6 also strongly disagreed with the suit’s contention that it hadn’t maintained the site as a first-class facility. Jones said the suit essentially requested a complete renovation.

“This is a 40-year-old lease, and a lot of the older leases in some industries use the term ‘first class’ without deciding what that means,” Jones said. He said Lynch also noted the term in the lease was inherently ambiguous.

Wooden & McLaughlin LLP partner Matthew Adolay, who represented 5810 Scatterfield, did not immediately return a message seeking comment Wednesday.

Jones said the record showed that the landlord had no complaints about Motel 6 until the chain notified owners in 2010 that it would not renew its lease and planned to vacate the property when the lease expires this year at the end of October.

Until then, Motel 6 is operating two hotels in Anderson nearly across the street from each other. The chain has leased and rebranded a property that formerly operated as a Fairfield Inn. That site will continue to operate as a Motel 6 after the lease with 5810 Scatterfield expires, Jones said.

Lynch didn’t rule on a defense argument that 5810 Scatterfield lacked standing to bring the suit, Jones said.

The defense claimed that the owner of record is a California partnership called 5810 Scatterfield that was voluntarily terminated some years back, and there was no evidence filed regarding assignment of rights before termination, Jones said. The 5810 Scatterfield LP that brought the suit was an entity organized as a Nevada limited partnership some years later.


 

 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT