« Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending October 26, 2007 | Main | Ind. Courts - Defendant's sentence includes watching his electronic gambling machines being destroyed »

Friday, October 26, 2007

Ind. Courts - Two interesting issues raised in Tippecanoe trial

Sophia Voravong of the Lafayette Journal & Courier has a story today that touches on two interesting issues:

The city code on West Lafayette's official Web site does not include information explaining to landlords how they should monitor over-occupancy at their properties.

That issue was raised Thursday in Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 by attorney William Kealey whose clients, Patti and Jerry Weida, are being sued by the city.

The civil bench trial, being heard by Judge Thomas Busch, began Tuesday morning. A decision could come today.

"You could not look up the definition of 'monitoring' by going to the site," Kealey said. "... What does duty to monitor mean for her (Patti Weida) business?"

The city of West Lafayette alleges that the Weidas allowed five women to live in a rental home together at 112 Sylvia St. in early 2006. The city's code allows up to three unrelated people to live together in areas zoned residential.

The Weidas and all five students are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

It will be up to Busch to decide whether the Weidas were diligent in monitoring the property, if they did not know of the additional residents and if they charged reasonable rent for the permitted occupancy.

Allen Grady, West Lafayette's assistant director of development, testified Thursday that he does not provide landlords with a checklist of how to monitor properties.

But he said they're encouraged to routinely visit properties, maintain contact with tenants and look at the number of vehicles parked outside.

He sent the Weidas a letter on March 6, 2006, asking them to update their occupancy affidavit.

"City ordinance states what they should do," Grady said.

The civil complaint against the Weidas was one of three recently filed by the city over code violations by landlords. In September, $61,000 was transferred into the city's legal budget to fight the court battles.

The first appears to be the duty of the city to make available to its citizens the legal requirements they are expected to follow.

The second is the issue of local ordinances in Indiana limiting the number of unrelated people who may live together. Although this issue is often raised in college towns (see this table), and our Supreme Court has issued a ruling on it (Dvorak v. City of Bloomington - 9/23/2003), there is a federal suit pending against the Town of St. John - see this Advance Indiana entry. Here is a copy of the complaint filed by the DOJ.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 26, 2007 04:16 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts