STATE, CIVIL RIGHTS COMM'N v. County Line Park, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 27A02-9901-CV-29.,27A02-9901-CV-29. |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. COUNTY LINE PARK, INC., Paul Fox and Carolyn Fox, Appellees-Defendants, |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jacquelyn Thompson, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Mark E. Spitzer, Marion, Indiana, Attorney for Appellees.
Plaintiff-Appellant Indiana Civil Rights Commission (Commission), in its own right and on behalf of James A. Cain, Sr. and Martha L. Cain (collectively "ICRC"), appeals the dismissal of its complaint.
We affirm.
The ICRC presents one multi-part issue which, for purposes of clarity, we restate as the following two issues:
In December, 1996, James Cain, Sr. and Martha Cain purchased a mobile home. The Cains intended to reside in the mobile home with their four children. Upon purchasing the mobile home, they applied for permission to rent the lot upon which it was situated. The mobile home was located upon a lot in the County Line Mobile Home Park which is owned and operated by County Line Park, Inc. (County Line). Paul Fox and Carolyn Fox serve as the corporation's president and secretary, respectively. Later that month, the Cains received a letter from Paul Fox denying their application due to County Line's long-standing policy to refuse to rent to applicants with more than two children.
In February, 1997, James Cain, Sr. filed an administrative complaint with the Commission and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development against County Line and Paul Fox claiming discriminatory housing practices on the bases of familial status and the disability of one of the Cains' children. The complaint was later amended to include Martha Cain as a complainant and Carolyn Fox as a respondent. In January, 1998, the Commission issued a Notice of Finding concluding that the evidence supported the complainants' allegation of unlawful discrimination on the basis of familial status only. Thereafter, County Line elected to have the merits of the complaint tried in a civil action rather than by an administrative law judge.2
In March, 1998, the Commission filed a complaint in its own right and on behalf of James Cain, Sr. and Martha Cain alleging that County Line and the Foxes had violated the Indiana Fair Housing Act. Thereafter, the three defendants joined in filing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B). The motion to dismiss set forth two bases for dismissal as follows: (1) Paul and Carolyn Fox, as corporate officers and shareholders, are not personally liable for the acts and liabilities of the corporation, and thus cannot be sued in their individual capacity, and (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and awarded attorney fees to the defendants. This appeal ensued.
The purposes of the Indiana Fair Housing Act (Act) are as follows:
Ind.Code § 22-9.5-1-1. Among other things, the Act prohibits discrimination based upon familial status in connection with the sale or rental of dwellings. See Ind.Code §§ 22-9.5-1-2; 22-9.5-5-1. As we noted above, once the Commission has made a finding that reasonable cause exists, a party can file a civil action rather than proceeding to an administrative hearing. See Ind.Code §§ 22-9.5-6-12; 22-9.5-6-14. Further, pursuant to Ind.Code § 22-9.5-9-1, the prevailing party in a civil action may obtain reasonable attorney fees.
In the present case, interpreting the relevant provision of the Act requires the resolution of an issue of first impression in this state. Thus, we look for guidance to applicable standards of review and principles of statutory construction.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts which support it. Kitco, Inc. v. Corporation for General Trade, 706 N.E.2d 581, 590 (Ind. Ct.App.1999). On review, we consider the pleadings, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. A dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) is only proper if it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts. Thomson Consumer Elecs., Inc. v. Wabash Valley Refuse Removal, Inc., 682 N.E.2d 792, 793 (Ind. 1997). Although dismissals under T.R. 12(B)(6) are rarely appropriate, Ratliff v. Cohn, 693 N.E.2d 530, 534 (Ind.1998),reh'g denied, we will affirm the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss if it is sustainable on any theory or basis found in the record. Garage Doors of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Morton, 682 N.E.2d 1296, 1301 (Ind.Ct.App.1997),trans. denied, 698 N.E.2d 1183 (1998).
When interpreting a statute for the first time, we look to the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction. Indiana State Teachers Ass'n. v. Board of Sch. Comm'rs., 693 N.E.2d 972, 974 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). This court is required to ascertain and execute legislative intent and to interpret the statute in such a manner as to prevent absurdity and to advance public convenience. Id. In so doing, we must be mindful of the purpose of the statute, as well as the effect of such an interpretation. Id. We read the individual sections of an act as a whole and strive to give effect to all of its provisions such that no part of the act is held meaningless if it can be reconciled with the rest of the statute. Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Indiana Statewide Ass'n of Rural Elec. Coops., Inc., 693 N.E.2d 1324, 1327 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). Moreover, we presume that our legislature intended its language be applied in a logical manner consistent with the underlying goals and policy of the statute. Id.
The ICRC contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint against County Line and the Foxes. According to the ICRC, County Line's refusal to rent to the Cains because they have more than two children constitutes housing discrimination based upon their "familial status."
Ind.Code § 22-9.5-5-1(a) provides:
A person may not refuse to sell or to rent after the making of a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability, or national origin.
(emphasis added). Further, the code provides, in pertinent part:
(2) domiciled with an individual younger than eighteen (18) years of age in regard to whom the person:
Ind.Code § 22-9.5-1-2 (emphasis added).
Here, the Cains reside with their four minor children, and the policy of County Line excluded from the mobile home park families with more than two children. The Cains were not refused permission to rent merely because they have any minor children; rather, County Line, through Paul Fox, refused to rent to the Cains because they have four children instead of only two, per County Line policy.
First, we note that the language of the statute demonstrates our legislature's intent to eliminate "adults only" mobile home parks.3 Further, we note that a policy such as County Line's is established for a variety of reasons. The management of mobile home parks must be cognizant of the limitations of sewer and other utility systems in these types of homes, as well as the quality of park life in general. In doing so, it may need to establish occupancy limits.
In their brief, Appellants cite numerous federal cases that discuss the federal fair housing act and urge us to similarly construe our statute. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631. 42 U.S.C. § 3602(k) states, in pertinent part:
(emphasis added). In contrast to its federal counterpart, our state statute uses more narrow terminology and is, therefore, subject to a more narrow interpretation. County Line's policy does not exclude children or families but merely limits the number of children per dwelling. Thus, we conclude the trial court did not err in dismissing the ICRC's complaint.
Next, the ICRC claims that Paul and Carolyn Fox can be sued in their individual capacities as shareholders and corporate officers of County Line. Although this issue was not addressed in the trial court's order of dismissal, we address it here in order to provide the parties with a complete resolution to this case.
It is well settled Indiana law that a corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from its shareholders and officers. Hart v. Steel Products, Inc., 666 N.E.2d 1270, 1276-77 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), reh'g denied, trans. denied, 683 N.E.2d 582 (1997). As such, corporate officers and shareholders acting on behalf of the corporation are generally not liable for the obligations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.
...are generally not liable for a corporation's obligations.") (internal citations omitted); State of Indiana, Civil Rights Comm'n v. County Line Park, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 768, 772 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (same). These contract provisions will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the "Disputed On......
-
STATE, CIV. RIGHTS COM'N v. County Line Park, Inc.
...the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of appellate attorney's fees. Civil Rights Comm'n v. County Line Park, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 768 (Ind.Ct. App.1999). Having previously granted transfer, we now reverse the judgment of the trial Discussion I. The Act makes ......