Vogel v. Harlan, 270A18
| Citation | 150 Ind.App. 426,277 N.E.2d 173 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 270A18,No. 2,270A18,2 |
| Parties | Melvin J. VOGEL, Georgia M. Vogel, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. Harry HARLAN et al., (Plaintiffs Below), Clearwater Land Company, Inc.(Defendant Below) Appellees |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Larry Wallace, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Robert F. Wernle, Wernle, Ristine & Milligan, Crawfordsville, Lyon & Boyd, Greencastle, for appellees.
Defendant-appellants built a building on a lot they purchased on a conditional sales contract in Indian Hills Estates, a sub-division in Montgomery County on Lake Holiday. The trial court found it to be in violation of restrictive covenants and issued a prohibitory injunction against further construction and a mandatory injunction requiring removal within sixty days. Plaintiff-appellees are the owners of other lots in the sub-division. The Clearwater Land Company, Inc., defendant-appellee is the developer of the subdivision and the vendor of the lot. It filed an answer of disclaimer and made no defense but is enjoined along with the appellants. It has neither appeared nor filed any brief in this court.
On every issue and defense the evidence was in some aspects conflicting, but more importantly, the contradictory inferences which reasonably could have been drawn from it are many. The ultimate facts which emerge, accepting the evidence and drawing the inferences most favorable to plaintiffs, fully support the trial court's judgment and fail to disclose any abuse of discretion. To recite those facts in detail would add nothing worthwhile to the opinion. Nor will we weigh the evidence and substitute our own findings for those we must presume were made by the trial court. Doi v. Huber (1969), 144 Ind.App. 451, 457, 247 N.E.2d 103, 107, 17 Ind.Dec. 367, 372.
The trial court acted in conformity with the principles stated in Sorrentino v. Cunningham (1942), 111 Ind.App. 212, 39 N.E.2d 473; Schwartz v. Holycross (1925), 83 Ind.App. 658, 149 N.E. 699; and Fesler v. Brayton (1896), 145 Ind. 71, 44 N.E. 37, 32 L.R.A. 578.
Defendant-appellants raised affirmative defenses of laches, waiver, and acquiescence. They now complain that the trial court failed to make findings of fact on these issues and rely on Hutter v. Weiss (1961), 132 Ind.App. 244, 177 N.E.2d 339, a case in which there was a special finding of facts and conclusions of law. No request therefor was made in the case at bar and the trial judge properly made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Orr v. Econo-Car of Indianapolis, Inc., ECONO-CAR
-
Graft's Adoption, In re, 3--672A9
...Langford v. Anderson Banking Co. (1970), Ind.App., 258 N.E.2d 60; Arnett v. Helvie (1971), Ind.App., 267 N.E.2d 864; and Vogel v. Harlan (1971), Ind.App., 277 N.E.2d 173. It will be noted, however, that the new rule TR. 52(A) no longer requires that the court make conclusions of law. 'The j......
-
Depeyster v. Town of Santa Claus, 74A04-9911-CV-481.
...of home from lot not excessive where owner had actual and constructive notice of restrictive covenants); see also Vogel v. Harlan, 150 Ind.App. 426, 277 N.E.2d 173 (1971) (affirming injunction ordering removal of home that was being constructed in violation of restrictive covenants); Schwar......
-
Highland v. Williams
...(1935), 101 Ind.App. 306, 194 N.E. 783; Bob Layne Contractor, Inc. v. Buennagel (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 671; Vogel v. Harlan (1971), 150 Ind.App. 426, 277 N.E.2d 173. What Highland argues is that the mandatory injunction was excessive relief under the facts of this Since Highland had a......