ILNews

Prosecutor's office allowed to file counterclaim

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Marion County Prosecutor's Office was allowed to vacate property it leased after repeated water leaks because the landlords constructively and actually evicted the office from the property, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed March 4.

At issue in Village Commons, LLC and Rynalco, Inc. v. The Marion County Prosecutor's Office and Carl Brizzi, No. 49A05-0704-CV-195, is whether the exclusive-remedy provision in the lease between Village Commons and Rynalco (landlords), and the prosecutor's office barred the office from asserting it was evicted by acts or omissions of Village Commons; whether the trial court's findings that the prosecutor's office was actually evicted and constructively evicted were erroneous; and whether a provision limiting the prosecutor's office's time to sue barred its defenses and counterclaims.

In 1999, then-Prosecutor Scott Newman executed a lease between Lombard Associate Limited Partnership and the Marion County Prosecutor's Office to lease the basement of the Victoria Centre in Indianapolis. Later, Village Commons and Rynalco purchased the building and became the new landlords.

The prosecutor's office used the space for its Grand Jury Division offices and evidence storage. Two years later, the office started experiencing numerous water leaks. Because of costs, the landlords decided not to re-pour a concrete sidewalk above the offices to help prevent leaks or to repair drywall. Boxes of evidence had been destroyed and the phones went out as a result of the leaks. The water leaks continued into 2002. In October 2002, the landlords sent a letter to the office suggesting the Grand Jury Division move the evidence it was storing and other materials away from the part of the building that was vulnerable to water damage.

On Jan. 30, 2003, the Grand Jury Division vacated the office and relocated. That was also the last month the office paid rent to the landlords. In February 2004, the landlords brought a complaint against the prosecutor's office, alleging it breached the lease and sought damages provided under the lease. The prosecutor's office counterclaimed with a wrongful-eviction theory, arguing it had been constructively evicted in August 2002.

A bench trial ruled the prosecutor's office's defense and counterclaims were not barred by the lease's exclusive-remedy provisions, which said the office could sue for injunctive relief or recover damages resulting from a breach, but it isn't entitled to terminate the lease or withhold rent. The trial court also found the office to be "actually" evicted in October 2002 and "constructively" evicted in January 2003, and the landlords didn't mitigate its damages reasonably. The prosecutor's office was awarded more than $7,000 and costs on its wrongful-eviction counterclaim.

The Court of Appeals concluded the exclusive-remedy provision only limited the prosecutor's office's ability to terminate the lease, not the landlords' ability, so any occurrence by the landlords that actually or constructively evicts the prosecutor's office ends the office's liability to pay rent.

It was the landlords' own act or admission - not properly fixing the water leaks and preventing water damage - that resulted in the prosecutor's office not having to pay future rent, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

The appellate court agreed that the office was actually evicted in October 2002, when the landlords asked the office to stop using part of the space that was most vulnerable to the water leaks, and that the office was constructively evicted in January 2003 because of repeated water leaks that went unfixed. The evidence at the trial court supports the finding that the prosecutor's office was deprived of a material part of the leased premises because of the water issues, which resulted in the actual eviction, wrote Judge Riley.

Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the prosecutor's office was allowed to bring a counterclaim and assert the defense it had been evicted. The landlords argued the prosecutor's office was barred from claims after one year of the date of inaction or event. This provision in the contract bars the prosecutor's office from initiating an action more than a year later; however, it was the landlords who initiated this action, so the prosecutor's office's defense and counterclaim are not barred by the lease, she wrote.
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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT