Wanda Roberts v. Anthony W. Henson
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 166
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wanda and Ray Roberts and 17 neighbors sued Anthony Henson after he built and moved into a large residence at 112 Altra Drive in a subdivision governed by 1956 restrictive covenants.
- Covenants limited lots to residential use, one detached single-family dwelling not exceeding one-and-one-half stories, and a private garage for not more than two cars; they also barred use of a “barn” or “outbuilding” as a residence.
- Henson’s building permit and plans described the structure as having two stories and a large (four-bay) garage; some engineering documents called it a “barn” or “pole barn.”
- Henson submitted affidavits (including an inspector) asserting the building is a one-and-one-half–story single‑family dwelling with a two‑car garage; plaintiffs’ expert said it was a 40×100 pole barn built per plans.
- Trial court granted Henson’s summary judgment motion and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion; the Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the structure is a prohibited “barn”/“pole barn” used as a residence | The building is a barn/pole barn (engineer’s documents) and thus violates the covenant barring barns/outbuildings as residences | The term described construction method only; the building is the main residence and not an outbuilding | Court: NOT a violation as a matter of law — structure is the main residence, not an outbuilding/barn |
| Whether the structure exceeds “one-and-one-half story in height” limit | Permit/plans show two stories; plaintiffs’ expert says it was built per plans (two stories) | Henson and his expert say structure is 1.5 stories; term may be ambiguous | Court: Ambiguous; factual issues exist about intent and measurement — summary judgment improper; remand for factfinding |
| Whether the garage exceeds covenant limit of “private garage for not more than two cars” | Plans and expert evidence indicate a four‑bay garage, violating the two‑car limit | Henson relies on acquiescence by other neighbors and argues his garage is within use limits | Court: Covenant unambiguous (limits garage space to two cars); acquiescence is an equitable defense raising factual issues — remand for factfinding |
| Whether acquiescence (neighborhood tolerance of similar violations) bars enforcement | Plaintiffs argue prior variations do not excuse Henson; violations differ in kind and location | Henson points to other homes with additional/different garage or outbuildings to show acquiescence | Court: Acquiescence is a factual inquiry (three‑factor test); summary judgment premature; remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Siner v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 51 N.E.3d 1184 (Ind. 2016) (summary judgment standard and heavy burden on movant)
- Reuille v. E.E. Brandenberger Constr., Inc., 888 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 2008) (use ordinary meaning of contract terms when interpreting ambiguous language)
- Hiner v. Hoffman, 977 P.2d 878 (Haw. 1999) (height‑restriction covenant found ambiguous where term “story” lacked dimensional definition)
- Johnson v. Dawson, 856 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (restrictive covenant limiting garage capacity is unambiguous and limits total garage space on a lot)
- Hrisomalos v. Smith, 600 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (acquiescence defense to enforcement of restrictive covenant; three‑factor analysis)
- Rusnak v. Brent Wagner Architects, 55 N.E.3d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (summary judgment appropriate when contract interpretation is unambiguous or ambiguity resolvable without factual development)