“We are appealing not just to save a building, but to clarify a legal principle that protects every property owner in Indiana: that your land rights are defined by public law and recorded plats, not just the shifting opinions of a private committee.”
Regardless of who's in the wrong, I wonder if this could set a precedent in favor of HOAs' by-laws vs city or state rulings.
"The company chose to keep building despite the lawsuit and the court's warning that demolition was possible."
Why the hell would you keep building when you're involved in a lawsuit - A lawsuit that you filed, wasn't the HOA that cried to the courts here - especially when the issue is something that gets harder and harder to correct the further along construction you are?
Builder decided to play a stupid game and he won himself a really stupid prize.
"When Michael Mercho first bought the property in question, the HOA required 15 feet between homes. However, it now requires at least a 20-foot space between homes and building to be constructed 15 feet from the property line." Seems to me that they HOA changed the rules. Not sure whether it was before or after the plans had been approved, but I think the judge screwed up on this. If the HOA changed the rules AFTER the plans were approved, that's on the HOA.
From the article it suggests that the setback rules changed before he built the building. It looks like this builder has already built several other homes in that neighborhood. My guess is that he bought a whole bunch of lots and that the change to the rules happened before he began work on this one. If he'd already had plans that were approved by the HOA, that would make a difference. But I'll bet that either he didn't have them yet, or he thought he could get away with building the thing wider than he said he was going to, and that nobody would notice.
That seems still too late to change the rules on them, if they bought the properties with the intention to build a certain way, changing the rules could make the entire build not work from a cost basis.
Now they are going to have a really really pissed off builder... prepare to have it rebuilt to be the cheapest shit you can imagine, and them rent it all out as section 8.
Nope, the plan approval is the point in time where you get permission to build based on whatever rules exist at that time. It happens all the time that people buy land with an intention to do something with it eventually and then the rules change before they get their permit.
At least where I'm from, once they have a land disturbance permit, they are free to construct according to the approved plans and would only have an issue if there was something that came up during construction that required a permit revision, at which point the city could enforce the new rules.
It won't be section 8. It's a wealthy area.
You can still do section 8. And section 8 is not an inherently bad thing for a community.
"The April 3, 2025 Order found that it is undisputed that MHM did not get approval of the Architectural Committee prior to beginning construction of the home on lot 11 and that the construction of the house on Lot 11 is in violation of the side yard setback rules contained in the 2021 Declarations. Moreover, the Court held, as a matter of law, that the 2021 Declarations control the construction of the home on Lot 11 and MHM is in violation of the provisions and of the promises MHM made to Watersedge and the City of Fishers to abide by the rules and restrictions contained in the 2021 Declarations and applicable in Watersedge."
Seems like that's what screwed him - Construction didn't start until 2023, but the restrictions existed prior to that. Looking further in the filings, it seems like they had arguments over another unit, but the HOA let that one slide? I wouldn't be surprised it that one started work right after the new standards went into effect and the HOA got over it on the expectation that future buildings would follow the new standards.
Maybe their is something in the earlier filings that'd change my mind, but this really does seem like a person trying to get away with making a problem to expensive to correct.
Yes, and there's also this:
<quote> The judge acknowledged the severity of his order and stated he made it in part because the builder failed to follow the HOA’s rules in the past. Najjar wrote, “The Court also finds that if the Declaration is not enforced and the building on Lot 11 is not made to conform, there is no way to ensure that further violations will not occur.” </quote>
It was prior to any foundation or anything.
They didn’t, and you aren’t smarter than the judge.
IDK about that.
Considering what judges in North America are doing I would say most people are smarter than judges.
Agreed! And it’s Indiana… state withe the stupidest nickname EVER! Hoosiers?!? The “statey’s” live their write tickets to out of state drivers! So, be cool when passing through! Everybody just wants to pass through! That’s why they hate everyone else! There are some great folks in Indiana, but they’re trapped!
Even the lawyers for the HOA were confused by the ruling lol
Because construction loans are pretty nuts if your building on credit. The interest rates can be pretty intense.
There is a lot of incentive to build it as fast as possible so that you can refinance the construction loan into a mortgage, which is far more manageable.
The HOA pointed out to the builder that it violated the setback rules after the foundation was poured. It could have been fixed at that time. The entitled builder kept building.
They were going for the equitable argument while forgetting the equitable doctrine of clean hands.
Seriously. They likely thought that they'd argue "it is unfair for us to sustain this much as damages/loss if you rule against us, all for a 5-foot difference in setbacks, and would you please think about the children too who won't have roofs over their heads, so you can't rule against us"
Too bad courts don't like ruling with proverbial guns pointed to their heads.
The house would be destroyed by the elements by then.
They were informed about the issue when there was only the concrete foundations poured... I feel like that would probably survive the elements fine?
I am too lazy to look. But contracts can be weird. They can be on the hook for damages if they don’t meet a completion date, even if it clearly should pause. I haven’t had it on an issue like this, but I’ve been charging forward because I had to, knowing it would change.
The people who purchased should never gone near it with the litigation hanging over it. It was disclosed so they probably don’t have any action possible against the builder. They took a gamble and lost.
Not owners. Article refers to them as tenants. Builder is going to take the hit on this one.
Edit: maybe owners, who knows.
quote from the article --
"Not only was the duplex built, but court documents state the two units were "sold on contract to two tenants." That means two families are currently living in the homes."
Sounds like sold not rented
They are under contract but the deal has not closed yet. So currently they are tenants.
The reason why it hadn't closed was the litigation because no lender would touch that.
Sold on contract often means that the seller takes monthly payments over time and acts as the lender to the buyer, as opposed to a traditional real estate sale which has a mortgage or is all cash up front.
What a wild story. Regardless of what people think, I think it's crazy that peiple would take this sort of legal risk.
Yeah, this builder is a fucking moron.
I imagine the builder is used to getting away with asking for forgiveness instead of permission. The fines are just a cost of doing business.
I absolutely LOVE it when litigants literally say, on record, they didn't follow ALL the laws...
Gambled and LOST, big time
No, what they are arguing is that they followed State law, and that the changes the HOA made are in conflict with said State law. It’s an interesting case that I can see going all the way up to our State Supreme Court. Demolition will almost certainly be overruled.
well, they have already lost a Summary Judgment previously finding that MHM built the house without required architectural approval and in violation of the subdivision’s 2021 covenants.
So, unless a judge overturns THAT first, this house ain't gonna be there soon, it SURE as hell isn't going to be heard all the way to SSC...
LOL, you have not read the details at all have you?
But you are glossing over some important details though, including the reliance by the HOA on a 2018 agreement signed by MHM, whereby MHM agreed to abide by the HOA rules…in effect in 2018. I’m not saying this will go all the way to the Indiana Supreme, but it 100% going up to the CoA and it’s only one step from the CoA to the Supreme. Given the issues here and the extreme damages ordered by the court…ie demolition of an existing occupied residential building…it’s not going to be a shock if the Indiana Supreme Court wants the last word.
LOL?
no, I am not, once that summary judgement dropped, all those details no longer mattered. Bet!
RemindMe! 270 day "review MHM Investments case in Hamilton county, Indiana"
I will be messaging you in 8 months on 2026-09-04 18:46:51 UTC to remind you of this link
3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
If the HOA changed their setback to 15 from 20 after approving the initial construction plans I dont see how it's the owners fault. It really depends when the change was made and if the land owner was notified.
Rules were set in '21. Builder didn't begin construction until '23.
They did follow all the laws, they didnt follow HOA "rules" which arent laws.
If you think that just because you build something you get your way …. refer to the Sunroads Enterprise building near San Diego’s Montgomery Airfield….
Had to remove the top 20 feet of their building !!!!
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/may/20/too-tall-building-cut-short
Just sold my house. We had a HOA and never again. one time they actually came in to my back yard to check on violations. NEVER EVER AGAIN will I purchase a Home with a HOA.
we live in a neighborhood with an HOA, and thankfully they’re “one of the good ones”. by that I mean all of the board members are fairly young, levelheaded and cool as a cucumber. They’re actually very hands off and our dues are only $300 per year that covers mowing grass and electricity for street lights. We didn’t know about the evils of an HOA before we bought our house when we were young, and now we’re pretty much stuck here but we’re doing everything we can to ensure that this thing stays operating just the way we like it, which is on the easier side because we’re only talking about around 80 or so homes total. I cannot fathom living with the constant fear of a truly shitty, or should I say typical, HOA hanging over your head.
"... your land rights are defined by public law and recorded plats..."
Hate to tell you this builder, but the HOA is actually part of the plat, so you're going to lose on appeal...
Wait till he finds out that was codified by George Washington’s administration.
As much as we love to shit on HOAs, this one is pretty cut and dry. Rules were changed before construction started AND were told one they started.
The builder is so clearly in the wrong I’m surprised you posted this, OP. The builder sued the HOA who was trying to work with him, and continued to build the home in question during the lawsuit. The HOA brought the problem up to the builder early in the process.
And by early, from what I understand, it was "Before construction even started"
Why are you chastising the OP? The OP didn't take sides. The OP merely offered it up, and then offered a query concerning the possible future effects that might arise, concerning HOA by-laws, as a result of this case.
Choice of forum. This isn't exactly a pro-HOA forum.
By all means, point out where the OP stated his positive opinion of HOAs.
The article is about a lawsuit concerning a favorable opinion FROM THE COURTS. The logical interference to make, given the ANTI-HOA forum and the OP's question about possible future ramifications arising from this case, is that the OP is CONCERNED about the INCREASE in power that may be extended to HOAs. You know, exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from someone posting in an Anti-HOA forum.
Yeah, I feel like this should be in r/proHOA
The very fact that subreddit exists terrifies me.
It doesn’t
I read the final judgment in its entirety. It was a well reasoned opinion and the builder was absolutely at fault. https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions.pdf
so the hoa approved plans and the code was 15 feet.
Construction began.
They changed it to 20 feet.
And then tell the builder he's the issue?
Fuck that HOA in particular.
Construction didn’t begin and then the HOA changed the rules. The builder decided to ignore the new 20 ft rule and go with the city’s 15 ft rule. That was the problem.
On top of that, they proceeded with the construction even when they were notified of the issue early on.
I’m all against HOA crazy rules, but this rule is to give more space between houses. Who would want to go against that rule and build so close to a neighbor?
A builder who wants the most bang for his buck
A builder.
I mean, sure, if that is what happened, but that is NOT what happened...
Heh, I know an hoa that amended their rear lot setback down to 50 feet nearly 20 years after the neighborhood was built. They’re too dumb to realize what they did. But if I had standing to sue lot owners in that neighborhood, you could have lots and lots of fun messing with Karens who do shady shit with sloppy attorneys and think they crossed their t’s.
That screams "We don't want any more building in this HOA, lets make it as difficult as possible"
They didn’t even realize they did it. Copy-pasted language from one neighborhood into the new one when they weren’t identical. Neighborhood one had the 50 foot. This one had it set to require compliance with city ordinance (so a pointless covenant). They pasted the 50 foot on top of that one and passed the amended doc 20 years later when all the houses have 30 foot setbacks. All the homeowners voted yes to it too. So I am waiting for them to demolish half their houses.
That's not how that works.
Pre-existing buildings would be unaffected, it's just new builds that are
Likely result in court obviously as a result of a judge being willing to protect people from their own stupidity, but no that’s not how it was written or intended.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Existing structures get grandfathered in, that's how it works.
Future builds have to follow the 50ft setback though.
Not what happened.
Imagine having such low reading comprehension that you read the article and came away thinking that was the series of events? Actually did you even read it? Are you literate?
what if they changed it to 1500mile rule? everyone then needs to be demolished
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
“While some may see this exchange as an example of an HOA having too much power, Sam Lash disagrees. He lives in the WatersEdge community and says his waterfront view is impacted by the duplex, so he wants it demolished.”
So pathetically self-serving
Why? He bought the property for the waterfront view? Then it’s taken away because some jackass broke the rules (for their own self serving agenda)?He has every right to want it demolished.
If it was built following the rules, he’d still lose his precious view
What a douchebag
[deleted]
Of course, but the point is, if you want water view, buy a waterfront property. You don’t have a right to have everything in between left vacant forever
The issue is, he didn't oppose it because the developer violated the rules, which I'd at least respect ("Hey if I have to follow the rules when I did my extension, so should you!"). Here, it was pure unbridled self-interest. "WAhh, I want my water view!"
Solution is clear. Builder should move the property line on the adjacent empty lot enough to bring the building into conformance. Of course that means they must build smaller on the empty Lot.
Gotta say I’ve read a fair amount of the comments and I’m surprised that no one has mentioned that the neighbor who was bitching about the home blocking his waterfront view should have bought a waterfront lot! Absolutely ridiculous and entitled to think that he could save money by not buying the lot with the best view then finding a reason to sue whoever ruins the view he didn’t pay for originally! Not saying what the builder did is the right way to handle it but I can’t get past the audacity of the neighbor who evidently feels as if he should have been the last person allowed to build in the subdivision.
I live near Water’s Edge. The builder is a small company and rents out what they build. I’m 100% sure the stink was raised by the HOA and the property owners becuase they don’t want renters in the neighborhood. Also, the view isn’t much to begin with.
That assertion is 100% false.
This all comes down to water views nothing else.