Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2-- January 10, 1999 Z.B. <br /> <br />Code Violations-2'Court fines land'iord $13,400 for violating occupancy limits <br /> <br /> Citation: Benjamin v. City of West Lafayette, Court of Appeals of Indiana, <br /> 4th Dist., No. 79AO4-9803-CV-J-24 (1998) <br /> <br /> Benjamin owned two houses in West Lafayette, Ind., both of which he <br /> rented to college students. One was zoned, s. ingle-family, the other two-family. <br /> The ordinhnce defined "family'' hs "one or more pe.tsons related by blood, <br /> marriage oradoption and not more than two unrelated natural persons living as <br /> a single housekeeping unit." This meant no more than three unrelated people <br /> could live at either of the landlord's houses .without violating the .ordinance. <br /> Violators c.o. uld.be fined between $10 and $300, with each.day a separate <br /> violation. <br /> A neighbor complained to the city that more "than three people Vzere living <br /> at one of the landlord's houses. Th~ city discovered four students liSted the <br /> house as their address and that the landlord received 'rent checks from four <br /> people each month. The landlord later gave the. city a sworn document stating <br /> only.three people lived in the house. Under the ordinance, £iling an inaccurate <br /> occupancy certificat~ was punishable by a fine .of $200 to $500 each day. <br /> The city also learned six people lived' at the landlord's sdcond house z~.ter <br /> si,5.' indiv.!duals wrote checks'to the city .se. wag? department. Again, 0nly.three <br /> students were listed on the lease..At one point, the landlord apparently warned <br /> residents Of the citY's imPending occupancy investigations and told th'am tO m~e <br /> it look as th6ugh 0nly thre~ people.lived there. .~ .. <br /> The city sued the l~ndl0rd, claiming he violated the occupancy ordihance <br />by alloWing more than three unrelated peoPle to liv. e at each of his houses and <br />by deliberately submitting a false occupancy statement. The city' ~ought fines <br />for 76 violations at one house and for 544 violations at the.other. <br /> The court ruled ir~ favor of the city find imposed fines for 420' violatiOns at <br />one house and 76 violations at the 9ther, as well as a fine for the false occu- <br />pancy statement.. In ail,"tHe court issued the landlord fines 't.0taling $13,400. <br /> The landlord appealed, claiming .the zoning board, 'not the court, had to <br />consider the city's claims. He 'based his claim on the administrative procedures <br />for correcting violations discovered duririg regular inspections'. The landIord <br />also claimed the city didn't prove he violated the ordinance because its ordi- <br />nance was'too vague:. He noted that the Ordinance didn't specify What degree <br />of familial relationship was allow~'d. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The landlord violated the ordinance by letting more than three unrelated <br />tenants to live at each 6f his houses. He had to pay more than $13,000 in fines. <br /> The court properly considered the city's claims. The administrative proce- <br />dures the landlord relied on applied only where code violations were discov- <br />ered during scheduled inspections, which wasn't the case here. The city <br />discovered violations at one house after a neighbor complained, and it found <br />violations at the other house after the six students wrote separate checks to pay <br /> <br /> <br />