122 N.E.3d 846
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Towne & Terrace Corporation (T&T) is a nonprofit that owns/maintains only the condominium common areas at the Towne & Terrace complex; individual dwelling units are owned by others, including the City of Indianapolis (City).
- The City owned dozens of units that were vacant and boarded, and alleged widespread crime and nuisance at the complex; the City sued T&T asserting nuisance and related claims but lost summary judgment on those claims.
- After the appellate affirmance in favor of T&T, both parties moved for appointment of receivers: T&T sought a receiver over City-owned parcels to secure unpaid assessments; the City sought a receiver over T&T and broadly over privately owned units and common areas to address unsafe/deteriorating conditions.
- The trial court granted both motions and appointed a joint receiver with authority over (1) City-owned properties subject to T&T’s liens and (2) T&T’s property and, if unsafe, privately owned properties within the complex.
- T&T appealed the appointment as to it and nonparty properties; the City cross-appealed the appointment over City-owned property. The court reviewed the interlocutory receivership order for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City or T&T) | Defendant's Argument (T&T or City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly appointed a receiver over T&T under the Unsafe Building Law | City argued receivership was proper under the Unsafe Building Law to address unsafe premises and code violations across the complex | T&T argued UBL procedures (notice, order, hearing, Section 17 action) were not followed and T&T controls only common areas (no buildings), so UBL does not apply | Reversed: UBL procedural requirements were not followed and no factual basis showed T&T-controlled premises were "unsafe premises" under the UBL |
| Whether trial court properly appointed a receiver over T&T under I.C. § 32-30-5-1(7) (general receivership) | City argued extreme disrepair/crime justified receivership over the whole complex to secure ‘‘ample justice’’ | T&T argued it lacks control over individual units, had alternative legal remedies, and the record lacked evidence its common areas justified receivership | Reversed: record lacked evidence that T&T’s common-area condition warranted this extraordinary remedy; adequate remedies at law existed |
| Whether trial court could appoint a receiver over nonparties’ privately owned properties | City sought broad authority for receiver to act on private properties if found unsafe | T&T argued trial court lacked jurisdiction over nonparties absent making them parties or separate actions | Reversed: trial court lacked jurisdiction to place nonparties’ property into receivership without joining them or separate process |
| Whether trial court properly appointed a receiver over City-owned properties (T&T’s motion) | T&T argued it was a judgment lien creditor and City-owned properties were neglected and in danger of material injury, justifying a receiver under I.C. § 32-30-5-1(2) and (3) | City argued liens cannot attach to government property and that evidence was insufficient; also raised separation-of-powers objection | Affirmed in part: appellate court found City’s challenge waived and the trial court’s unchallenged factual findings that City-owned properties were neglected supported the receivership over City-owned parcels; constitutional/separation-of-powers claim waived and rejected on precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Indianapolis v. Towne & Terrace Corp., 106 N.E.3d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (prior appeal resolving nuisance/assessment issues and describing T&T’s limited property control)
- Schrenker v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review and caution in appointing receivers)
- Crippin Printing Corp. v. Abel, 441 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (receivership as an extraordinary remedy implicating property rights)
- Ziffrin Truck Lines, Inc. v. Ziffrin, 180 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. 1962) (receiver should not be appointed where an adequate remedy at law exists)
- McCollum v. Malcomson, 358 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (receiver cannot acquire property from a stranger to the litigation without making them a party)
- Crum v. City of Terre Haute, 812 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (municipal authority under Unsafe Building Law)
- Rubber Co. v. Duncan, 155 N.E. 625 (Ind. App. 1927) (discussing prerequisites for appointment of a receiver)