Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of Indiana Landmarks over the historic preservation organization’s belief that the current owner of a historic property in LaPorte should be bound by certain protective covenants to restore the property.
The court also rejected the organization’s argument that its rights to the property should be restored.
The opinion, written by Judge Paul Mathias and issued on July 16, reverses and remands the LaPorte Circuit Court’s judgment with instructions to enter judgment for appellant Nicholas Yrjo Nifadeff.
The attorney for Nifadeff said he could not comment on the lawsuit due to the case still being in the appellate process. Attorneys for Indiana Landmarks did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The appellate court’s opinion hinges on two arguments by Nifadeff: 1) whether the trial court’s finding that Nifadeff expressed intention to restore the LaPorte property is sufficient to show a “promise” under a theory of promissory estoppel and 2) whether a prior foreclosure entered against appellee Indiana Landmarks regarding the LaPorte property is res judicata as to the organization’s current rights to the property.
The property in question is the Orr Mansion, a historic property in LaPorte that’s gone through several owners since 1999, when the then-owner of the property entered into an agreement with Indiana Landmarks for the restoration of the mansion. According to the agreement, Indiana Landmarks provided the owner with a $22,295 loan to be used for restoration. In exchange, the owner granted Indiana Landmarks a security interest in the property to protect the repayment of the organization’s loan.
The agreement also gave Indiana Landmarks the opportunity to purchase the property over other buyers. Finally, the agreement granted the organization certain “protective covenants” on the property, such as a restoration plan, to be submitted to Indiana Landmarks within 90 days of purchasing the property, and the expectation that the property’s owner would keep the exterior of the property in “first class condition,” according to court documents. If those covenants weren’t met, Indiana Landmarks had a right to sue in accordance with the agreement.
Anyone who owned the property was bound by the covenants.
In 2003, the man who had acquired the property in 1999 defaulted on his mortgage note with his bank and the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. The decree of foreclosure stated that the bank was entitled to have the mortgage foreclosed against all defendants, which included Indiana Landmarks.
The foreclosure was completed, and all rights, titles, interests and claims of the defendants were sold, according to court documents.
The bank purchased the property’s sheriff’s deed and sold the property to a different owner without notifying Indiana Landmarks.
The property shifted through several other owners without notice to Indiana Landmarks until it was purchased by Nifadeff in 2017. Nifadeff received the property’s purchase agreement, which stated that any purchase offer submitted by him is contingent upon Indiana Landmarks’ first right to purchase the property, a condition found in the original agreement between Indiana Landmarks and the owner of the property in 1999.
Indiana Landmarks agreed to let Nifadeff purchase the property with the expectation that Nifadeff would adhere to the protective covenants established in the purchase agreement. Before purchasing the property, Nifadeff wrote an email to Indiana Landmarks stating that the organization “should expect” him to provide a detailed restoration plan within 90 days of buying and other restoration efforts.
In 2021, however, Indiana Landmarks filed a lawsuit against Nifadeff, arguing that he failed to submit a restoration plan or maintain the property in “first class condition,” according to court documents. Indiana Landmarks sought injunctive relief and that Nifadeff be required to comply with the purchase agreement’s protective covenants.
Nifadeff, in turn, argued Indiana Landmarks’ nonenforcement of its purported rights to the property in the time between the bank’s acquisition of the sheriff’s deed in 2003 and Nifadeff’s ownership in 2017.
The case moved through several proceedings until August 2025 when a bench trial was held. Following the trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Indiana Landmarks on the basis that Nifadeff was made aware of the protective covenants before purchasing the property and that he emailed Indiana Landmarks of his intention to submit a restoration plan within 90 days of purchase. The court concluded that Nifadeff was bound by the protective covenants.
The trial court’s finding that Nifadeff’s 2017 email announcing his intention to submit a restoration plan supports a theory of promissory estoppel is contrary to law, the appellate court found.
According to the court, Nifadeff’s vocalized intentions to submit the restoration plan is not sufficient to demonstrate a promise under a theory of promissory estoppel because “intention” does not equal a promise under Indiana Court of Appeals and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case law.
Finally, the appellate court rejected Indiana Landmarks’ attempt to restore its rights to the LaPorte property because those rights were terminated in the decree of foreclosure for the bank in 2003. Because those rights had been terminated, Indiana Landmarks is now prevented from litigating its rights under the original 1999 agreement, according to court documents.
Appellate judges Dana Kenworthy and Mary DeBoer concur.
The Orr Mansion was built in 1875 for William Orr, the son of State Senator and Brigadier General Joseph Orr, and designed by Chicago architect Willoughby James Edbrooke.
The case is Nicholas Yrjo Nifadeff v. Indiana Landmarks, 25A-PL-02520.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.