Town of Knightstown v. Dudley Wainscott
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 69
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wainscott owns the adjacent "Old Lodge" whose shared load-bearing wall was damaged after the Town contracted Shroyer Brothers to demolish the neighboring "Bullet Hole" building in April 2013. He alleged structural holes, water intrusion, mold, and potential mercury contamination.
- On April 14, 2013 Wainscott sent a written letter to the Town detailing the damage and demanding remediation; he also raised the issue at the April 18 Town Council meeting where the council president said the Town would fix any damage it caused. The Town hired an engineer.
- Wainscott sued the Town and the contractor in February 2015 asserting equitable relief, breach of contract, nuisance, negligence, and an Open Records Act claim.
- The Town moved for summary judgment arguing Wainscott failed to file a timely tort-claim notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) as to tort-based claims and that no contract existed for the breach claim; it also sought judgment on the Open Records claim as moot.
- The trial court held Wainscott’s April 2013 letter failed to comply with the ITCA because it did not expressly state intent to sue, granted summary judgment for the Town on negligence and equity claims, denied it on nuisance and breach-of-contract, and granted judgment for the Town on the Open Records claim.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed as to negligence and equity (holding the April letter substantially complied with the ITCA), affirmed denial on nuisance, and reversed denial as to breach of contract (finding no enforceable oral contract).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wainscott) | Defendant's Argument (Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether April 14, 2013 letter satisfied ITCA notice requirement | Letter described time/place/nature of loss and demanded remediation; thus substantially complied and informed Town of intent to pursue a claim | Letter did not expressly state intent to bring legal action; so it failed ITCA and bars tort claims | Held: Substantial compliance — letter sufficiently informed Town; ITCA notice requirement satisfied |
| Whether negligence and equitable claims were barred by ITCA | Claims not barred because April letter substantially complied with ITCA | Claims barred for lack of express intent-to-sue language in notice | Held: Trial court erred to grant summary judgment — negligence and equity survive (ITCA notice satisfied) |
| Whether nuisance claim is subject to ITCA and barred | Nuisance claim not barred (or regardless, notice here was sufficient) | Nuisance is a tort subject to ITCA and barred for lack of notice | Held: Court did not decide whether nuisance is within ITCA but held on facts notice was sufficient so claim not subject to dismissal |
| Whether Town is entitled to summary judgment on breach-of-contract claim based on council president’s statements | Wainscott: president’s statement created an oral contract to repair damage | Town: no offer, acceptance, consideration, or meeting of the minds; statement too vague and lacked authority | Held: No enforceable contract as a matter of law; summary judgment for Town should have been entered on breach claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoettmer v. Wright, 992 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and strict construction of ITCA notice statute)
- Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d 497 (Ind. 1989) (substantial-compliance doctrine for ITCA notice; actual municipal knowledge insufficient if no notice filed)
- Porter v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 743 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (attorney letter without explicit intent-to-sue can substantially comply where it notifies and permits investigation)
- Kerr v. City of South Bend, 48 N.E.3d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (municipal investigation does not substitute for required notice when notice absent)
- Scott v. Gatson, 492 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (failure to state dollar amount in notice does not automatically render it insufficient)