106 N.E.3d 507
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Towne & Terrace is a nonprofit condominium corporation that owns and maintains common areas but not individual units; unit owners are members and pay assessments. The corporation may require issuance of membership certificates after transfers.
- By 2017 the City owned at least 49 units in the complex (some acquired via tax sale, some by settlement) and left them vacant and boarded.
- The City sued Towne & Terrace alleging public nuisance and sought compensatory damages, including reimbursement for public-safety resources spent responding to crime at the complex. Towne & Terrace counterclaimed for unpaid maintenance assessments on City-owned units.
- Towne & Terrace moved for summary judgment on the City’s complaint and on its counterclaim; the trial court granted summary judgment to Towne & Terrace and partial summary judgment on the counterclaim.
- The appellate court affirmed, addressing (1) whether I.C. § 32-31-1-22 bars the City’s claim for reimbursement of public-safety costs, (2) whether the City’s nuisance claim survives summary judgment, and (3) the City’s liability for maintenance assessments on units it acquired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 32-31-1-22 bars the City from recovering public‑safety costs from Towne & Terrace | City: The statute doesn't apply or retroactively bar its nuisance suit; it seeks compensatory damages under I.C. § 32‑30‑6‑7. | Towne & Terrace: The statute prohibits penalties or cost‑shifting to landlords/owners for calls for emergency assistance; City is effectively seeking such recovery. | Court: Section 32‑31‑1‑22(d) bars recovery of public‑safety resource costs from a landlord/owner; City’s claim for those costs is barred. |
| Whether the City proved a public nuisance attributable to Towne & Terrace’s ownership/maintenance of common areas | City: Towne & Terrace failed to take reasonable measures to prevent crime and ameliorate conditions, creating a public nuisance. | Towne & Terrace: It owns only common areas, lacks control/authority over individual units and policing, and designated evidence showing no use/maintenance of common areas created the nuisance. | Court: City failed to designate evidence tying Towne & Terrace’s use or maintenance of common areas to the alleged nuisance; summary judgment for Towne & Terrace proper. |
| Whether Towne & Terrace can be characterized as a "landlord" for purposes of the statute | City: Towne & Terrace is not a landlord of individual units, so the statutory limitation shouldn't apply. | Towne & Terrace: It functions as owner/manager of common areas and imposes assessments; qualifies as a landlord for common areas. | Court: Towne & Terrace can be considered a landlord with respect to common areas; statutory protections therefore limit the City’s recovery for emergency‑call costs. |
| Whether the City owes maintenance assessments on units it acquired (some by tax sale) | City: Many units were not "purchased" (acquired via tax sale/owner‑of‑last‑resort) and it should not be liable for assessments; lack of membership certificates means prior owners remain liable. | Towne & Terrace: "Purchaser" includes those who acquire by means other than descent/gift/inheritance; tax‑sale acquirers who recorded deeds are purchasers and owners, and the Covenants impose assessments on owners/purchasers regardless of membership‑certificate issuance. | Court: "Purchaser" includes the City’s mode of acquisition; nothing exempts non‑certified owners. City is liable for maintenance assessments. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley, 891 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (summary judgment standards and burdens on appellants)
- State v. Universal Outdoor, Inc., 880 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. 2008) (statutory interpretation: harmonize conflicting statutes and give effect to all parts)
- City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003) (public nuisance need not involve unlawful activity or ownership/control of property)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (moving party entitled to judgment when designated evidence raises no genuine issue of material fact)