*1 actions, longer "le- is no she injury sonal she because limitations of statute the damages to recover with gally contract entitled" to her brought suit gov- is her action therefore Farm driver, State Farm State from that limitations of ten-year statute by the erned the contract. under is not liable Farm actions. State contract applicable concealment fraudulent of The doctrine aon was based Ayers' action replies that posed by impasse Ayers from rescues was therefore injury claim personal an operates as That doctrine Farm. State period on limitation two-year by the barred from estop a defendant equitable device addition, State injury actions. personal he limitations when of asserting a statute contract insurance Ayers' asserts Farm of by violation deception or has, either her claim. also barred material plaintiff from duty, concealed erred trial -The CONCLUSION pursu plaintiff from preventing facts complaint. Ayers' it dismissed when Burks of action. cause ing potential Ay that because Farm asserts State Rushmore injuries, personal damages for seeks ers in of a vehicle The driver 34-1-2-9. IC applicable limitation period of two-year statutory duty has a in an accident volved Ayers' bars actions injury personal 9-4-1- Ind.Code identified. stop and be $4-1-2-2(1) (1988). Ayers Ind.Code claim. (1988). -41 40 and limita of ten-year statute claims against Therefore, potential claim Ayers' actions, is to contract applicable tions because is not barred driver unknown 84-1-2- IC limitation. period of ‘ relevant fraudulently 2(6). con- driver has the unknown of a identity in violation or her cealed limita which decided Recently, pre- duty, IC statutory against claims applicable period is tion cause of her pursuing Ayers from vented motor uninsured arising from insurers col- "legally entitled" is Ayers action. in an insurance ist benefits driver, and the unknown damages from lect (1989), Ind. v. Perchez In Panos tract. its insurance liable is Farm Third District App., Ayers. with contract peri ten-year that the limitation rele is the actions to contract applicable od reversed. Judgment considered, to be of limitations statute vant CONOVER, JJ., agree: with which SULLIVAN conclusion non-liability liability, or Farm's "State concur. pay it has contracted because arises in the event damages Panoses' injured negligently motorist uninsured action a contract It them. year statute a ten there is which 84-1-2-2(6)." Snedeker, MINDER, limitations. L. Robert Don W. Woodridge Homeowners Panos, supra Association, Inc., Appellants, dismissal, State In its motion in Ayers' language asserted Farm claim. her also barred contract surance FOUNDA- HOME LUTHER MARTIN motorist uninsured points Corporation, TION, Nebraska that State states which contract bodily "for damages pay would Farm No. 61A04-8908-CV-00341. is insured damage an injury the owner from collect entitled Court legally ve motor an uninsured driver or the supplied). (emphasis Aug.13,1990. at 15 Record hicle." Ayers did that because claims Farm the unknown action bring her acci her caused the vehicle driver per- period for limitation dent, *2 Hayes, Wilkinson, Timothy R.
Myrl O0. Modesitt, Wilkinson, Patrick, & Goeller Haute, appellants. Terre Lewis, Lewis, Terre Lewis and D. Jordan Haute, appellee. DECISION
MEMORANDUM MILLER, Presiding Judge. sought a declarato-
Plaintiff-homeowners prohibited, which would ry judgment covenants, restrictive of deed as a violation home, group an adult presence Foundation, in their Martin Luther Home granted sum- subdivision. home. of the adult judgment in favor mary majority of The trial court. ques the same presents
This case Christole, Inc. tion raised N.E.2d 1180 (1990), Ind.App., 548 of the adult amendment that the 1988 held 16-13-21, (Ind.Code home statute group group 14.1) authorizing homes single family resi persons
mentally ill a not constitute did dential po of the state's exercise retroactive valid The amendment power. lice void were such restrictions majority of policy of the state. not amendment was held that the of the state's exercise retroactive a valid proposed police power and the subdivision's homes violated commercial, they were a covenants because residential, The writer of use. dissented, stating: opinion case do not in this "'The violate There is respective deeds. type homes are the that both dispute no family dwelling-per building-single Further, by the covenants. mitted the business and not uses are covenants." prohibited (Miller, dissenting). J. Id. at that, if the further The dissent significance issues were law mandated appeal, case (1) did in the statute: retroactive (2) did not process, and not violate v. Imler Properties residents' impair unconstitutionally version dealt with 459 which and legitimate it was contracts because pow- police Today the court over- statute. narrowly drawn exercise the same - and I have decisions rules those er. *3 dissent. I must that noted, here majority As Clem, in su- dissent of the the conclusion point out at the important to it I consider unnecessary to restate pra. (1) accept the notion I beginning that the reasons. for the providing homes utility of social ordinary resi- in disabled developmentally oth raise one also The homeowners legisla- power and dential areas improp court the trial They claim er issue. (2) strongly it; I sus- support ture to Dis home's Motion erly converted opposing those pect that The court summary judgment. miss into a neigh- in a residential home such judgment in its hearing and stated held a irra- emotionally and reacting are borhood evidence had heard that it reasons for these tionally. precisely It is making the conversion was means For our constitution that Procedure, Rule 12. Trial Ind. Rules only against may if it be invoked nothing no evidence claim there was Homeowners are left the case we If that be laws. "bad" failed, after even hearing, but at the or small merey some individual's record of that to the revealed briefing appears of what momentary view group's record of in the not included hearing was good or bad. us. record before bring that proceedings, that evi stated judgment court's the restric- that no doubt There can be and it is hearing, at that heard dence was this subdivi- adopted when tive covenants to show responsibility the homeowners' enforce- were valid created sion was was otherwise. that the situation court this are To the extent time. at that able In v. State Adams the area here, simply limit they concerned court, su 985, citing numerous N.E.2d residential dwellings and family single decisions,1 "our su court preme and business purposes. Commercial that it is consistently held preme court prohibited. are the area complete duty present appellant's question, in court, fail The statute and the reviewing record to cre- restrictions all such to declare purports alleged error based do so waives ure to 1, 1988 void April ated material." Id. on absent use of prohibit they would extent that is af- the trial judgment of facility for a residential property firmed. ill mentally or persons. CHEZEM, J., concurring in result. 1, 24 of the Constitution Article opinion. § GARRARD, J., dissenting with clear- simply and provides of Indiana GARRARD, dissenting. Judge, ly: ago in Christole months Six law, impairing or law post facto No ex dis 1180 this 548 N.E.2d
(1990), Ind.App., be shall ever contracts obligation of concern that IC 16-13-21-14 trict decided passed. not survive could ing so-called in Pulos court held supreme As our to the extent challenge 768, N.E.2d 302 (1973),261 Ind. valid James theretofore attempted to declare al attempt legislative invalidating a pri in covenants existing restrictive plats to alter zoning authorities low invalid. so vate covenants change or delete this dis court followed deciding the Clem them, Group in Adult decision earlier trict's 32; Ind., (1986), N.E.2d 496 Jackson v. (1989), 719; N.E.2d Ind., 534 v. State 1. Rondon Ind., v. State (1987) Cox Stallings v. State prohibit con- may Legislature ... policy, are [but]
tracts that nevertheless, impair previous- it, may not rights there- after
ly legal contracts have vested. found in Pulos
Additionally, plats create cannot grantees rights of law process taken without *4 compensation. just payment of ar- protection equal
Perhaps there is supremacy invoke the
gument that would in favor federal constitution is, disabled, if there but made. not been 16-13- purposes, IC salutary
Despite its Constitution. the Indiana
21-14 violates therefore, to stand.
cannot, permitted DOVE, by parents
Nathan guardians, Debra DOVE
natural Dove, Appellants, David M.D., RUFF,
Jerard G.
No. 53-A04-8906-CV-240.
Court of
Aug. 24, 1990. Sept.
Rehearing Denied