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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT