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.




Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?