Eichhorn & Eichhorn Attorneys At Law

Claim:

Jose Andrade is a landlord who owns 32 properties with a total 62 rental units. He purchased a Hammond building in 1998 with the intention of renting it out. The building was built in 1927 and divided into multiple units over time, ultimately into five apartments. Notices were sent to Andrade by the enforcement body, City of Hammond, of various safety violations at this property.

Outcome:

The firm successfully defended Hammond and its Board of Public Works and Safety, (“the Safety Board”), in both a judicial review trial and on appeal. After a hearing, the Safety Board declared the building to be unsafe. The Safety Board concluded that the building had inadequate fire stopping, lack of fire blocking, flammable support beams, inadequate fire separation, improperly braced stairs of inadequate width, lack of basement apartment bedroom windows and low basement ceilings that would contribute to smoke accumulation and prevent egress in an emergency. The Safety Board also held that the building could be occupied safely only as a single family dwelling, or possibly as a two-unit. The Lake Superior Court affirmed the Safety Board in a judicial review trial.The Indiana Court of Appeals then affirmed the Safety Board’s order that Andrade restore the five unit apartment building back to a single-family dwelling after the Board found that the building was unsafe and originally permitted and constructed as a single family dwelling. Andrade contended that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by acting as a zoning authority when it ordered him to restore the home to a single-family dwelling. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and found that the Safety Board’s order that the four unsafe apartments in the home had to be removed fell squarely within the ambit of the Indiana Unsafe Building Law’s unambiguous provisions. The Court also found that the Safety Board could order the building remediated in this fashion under the Unsafe Building Law because it was unsafe, and regardless of whether the building was constructed as a multi-unit, even with a proper permit. The Court of Appeals also rejected out-of-hand Andrade’s suggestion that this was an unconstitutional “taking” without Due Process. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the Safety Board did not exceed its statuary authority in its order, and that there was more than sufficient evidence to prove that: 1) the building was unsafe; and 2) the building in fact was constructed as a single-family dwelling in 1927.The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on March 8, 2019.

See complete opinion here.