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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT