Olthof Homes, LLC d/b/a Olthof Homes v. Town of Chesterton, Indiana
24A-MI-01944
Ind. Ct. App.Jun 12, 2025Background
- Olthof Homes, LLC was fined $100,000 by the Town of Chesterton Storm Water Management Board (the "Board") for violating local storm-water-management ordinances during its Springdale subdivision development.
- From 2020-2022, Olthof Homes incurred and paid over 100 small fines ($100 or $250 each, totaling ~$38,000) for storm water violations issued through the Ordinance Violations Bureau.
- In March 2022, further violations led to an administrative hearing before the Board, which found over 140 additional violations and issued a stop-work order, later lifted after remediation.
- The Board imposed a blanket $100,000 fine without assigning specific fines to each violation, citing general and administrative penalty provisions as authority.
- Olthof Homes challenged the fine, arguing that only the lower fines ($100 or $250) applied, regardless of the forum; the trial court sided with the Town, granting summary judgment against Olthof Homes.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals examined whether the ordinances unambiguously permitted higher fines and whether the penalties were properly imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper fine amount under ordinance | Only $100/$250 fines apply for each violation | $2,500/$7,500 fines apply in administrative proceedings | Only $100/$250 fines apply |
| Applicability of general penalty provision (Sec 1-9) | Specific penalties in Sec. 24-53/24-58 control | General provision fills gap where hearing is used | Specific penalties control; higher fines barred |
| Blanket fine (not individualized per violation) | Blanket fines are improper and cause confusion | Did not specifically address on appeal | Criticizes, warns blanket fine invites issues |
| Separate fines for Permit violations vs. Code | Permit and code violations not distinct | Permit violations are separate, warrant higher fines | Code and permit violations are not separate |
Key Cases Cited
- Klinker v. First Merchs. Bank, N.A., 964 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 2012) (punitive statutes should be strictly construed)
- Dev. Servs. Alts., Inc. v. Ind. Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 915 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (courts must review agency actions on stated grounds only)
- Palmer v. Stockberger, 193 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1963) (penalty statutes in derogation of common law to be strictly construed)