Occupancy Code Violations
Court fines landlord $13,400 for violating occupancy
limits
Benjamin v. City of West Lafayette, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 4th
Dist., No.79A04-9803-CV-124 (1998)
A landlord named Benjamin owned two houses in West
Lafayette, Ind., which he rented to college students. One house was zoned single family,
the other two-family.
A West Lafayette city ordinance defined
"family" as "one or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption and
not more than two unrelated natural persons living as a single housekeeping unit."
The ordinance intended that no more than three unrelated people could live at either of
the landlord's houses without violating the ordinance. If an owner allowed a violation of
the occupancy limit, the city could fine them between $10 and $300, and each day would be
a separate violation.
A neighbor complained to the city that more than three
people were living at one of the landlord's houses. The city's investigation showed that
although only three students were listed on the lease, four students listed the house as
their address and the landlord received rent checks from four people each month. The
landlord later gave the city a sworn document stating that only three people lived in the
house. Under the ordinance, the failure to file an accurate occupancy certificate was
punishable by a $200 to $500 fine for each day a violation occurred.
The city also learned that six people lived at the
landlord's second house when six individuals wrote checks to the city sewage department,.
Again, only three students were listed on the lease while six students, including two
brothers lived in the house.
To compound his troubles, at one point, the landlord
warned his tenants about the city's occupancy investigations and apparently told them to
make it look as though only three people lived in the house.
The city sued the landlord, claiming he violated the
occupancy ordinance by allowing more than three unrelated people to live at each of his
houses and by deliberately submitting a false occupancy statement. The city sought fines
for violations at one house from September 1993 through December 1993, a total of 76
violations. It sought fines for 544 violations at the other house.
Landlord loses $13,400
The court ruled in favor of the city
and imposed fines for 420 violations for one house and 76 violations for the other, as
well as a fine for the false occupancy statement. In all, the court issued the landlord
fines totaling $13,400.
Landlord appeals
The landlord appealed, claiming the
zoning board, not the court, had to consider the city's claims. He relied on
administrative procedures for correcting violations discovered during regular inspections.
The landlord also claimed the city didn't prove he violated the ordinance because its
ordinance was too vague, pointing out the ordinance didn't specify what degree of familial
relationship was allowed under the ordinance.
DECISION: Affirmed.
The landlord violated the
ordinance by letting more than three unrelated tenants live at each of his houses. He had
to pay more than $13,000 in fines.
The court properly considered the city's claims. The
administrative procedures the landlord relied on applied only where code violations were
discovered during scheduled inspections, which wasn't the case. The city discovered
violations at one house after a neighbor complained and at the other house after six
individuals wrote separate checks to pay city sewage charges. Moreover, state law gave the
city the right to sue for fines for any zoning violation.
There was more than enough evidence showing the landlord
violated the occupancy ordinance. Although one lease listed only three tenants, the
landlord received, accepted, endorsed, and deposited rent checks from four unrelated
tenants. He knew about the city's impending investigations and specifically told the
tenants to make it look as though only three people lived at the property. In fact, a
tenant had told the landlord that more than three unrelated people were going to live at
one of the houses, and the landlord said he did "not want to know anything."
Also see: Carpenter v. Whitley County Plan Commission, 367 N.E.2d 1156 (1977).
Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County v. The Villages Inc., 464 N.E.2d 367
(1984).
|