Jack A. Enslen v. Area Plan Commission of Grant County Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 227
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jack Enslen owned a house in a built-up residential area that was gutted and uninhabitable since about 2002; no work resumed due to financial hardship.
- Enslen obtained building permits in 2009 (extended) and 2012 but performed no remediation because he lacked funds.
- In March 2015 the Grant County Area Plan Commission (APC) sent a Notice alleging the structure was vacant, unsafe, and a public nuisance and ordering compliance or removal within 30 days.
- Enslen sought a new permit; the APC directed him to work under the 2012 permit but he did not seek an extension or do work.
- APC filed a civil zoning/unsafe-structure complaint; after a bench trial the court ordered razing of the structure within 30 days and assessed fines/costs.
- Enslen appealed, arguing the Notice was constitutionally vague, the APC presented no evidence of a statutory/ordinance violation, and the judgment was clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (APC) | Defendant's Argument (Enslen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the house qualifies as an "unsafe building" under I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a)(6) (vacant and not maintained for human habitation) | House is vacant, lacks plumbing, heat, electricity, weather-tight exterior, and thus is an unsafe building under the statute | House is not vacant (contains personal property) and could be used for storage, so statute doesn't apply | Court held the house was vacant/uninhabitable under the statute and qualifies as an unsafe building |
| Whether APC presented sufficient evidence to support the unsafe-structure finding | APC relied on building inspector testimony and Enslen's own admissions about lack of utilities and condition | Enslen attacked inspector's personal-knowledge and urged reweighing of evidence | Court affirmed; evidence (including Enslen's testimony) sufficed and appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Whether the Notice was unconstitutionally vague/defective for lack of specificity (Due Process) | Notice and trial evidence were adequate; Enslen understood what needed doing but lacked funds | Notice failed to identify specific code violations so Enslen lacked fair notice | Court rejected the vagueness claim (also noted waiver for failure to litigate the claim below) and found no constitutional violation |
| Whether APC's refusal to issue a new permit deprived Enslen of ability to comply | APC directed Enslen to work under existing permit; issuance would be futile given Enslen's finances | APC unlawfully refused a permit, preventing compliance | Court found Enslen could have sought extension and, in any event, lack of funds made permit issuance irrelevant; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Techna-Fit, Inc. v. Fluid Transfer Prods., Inc., 45 N.E.3d 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate review will not reweigh evidence; judgment sustainable on any theory consistent with evidence)
- Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Pryor, 683 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 1997) (appellate courts must give due regard to trial court credibility determinations)
- City of New Haven v. Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Ind., L.L.C., 701 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (stop-work orders must be reasonably specific to satisfy due-process fair-notice requirements)