MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING FILED
Aug 05 2016, 8:57 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
CLERK
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Shaun T. Olsen Ray L. Szarmach
OlsenCampbell Ltd. Merrillville, Indiana
Merrillville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Castlewood Property Owners August 5, 2016
Association, Inc., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Plaintiff, 45A03-1508-PL-1105
Appeal from the Lake Superior
v. Court
The Honorable William E. Davis,
Leticia Guerra-Danko, Judge
Appellee-Defendant. Trial Court Cause No.
45D05-1007-PL-62
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A03-1508-PL-1105 | August 5, 2016 Page 1 of 2
[1] We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of acknowledging that the panel was
of three different minds in reaching our original decision in this matter. That
has not changed. As explained in our original decision, the three judges on this
panel are of the following distinct opinions:
Judge Baker believes that the Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
did not exercise its powers in a reasonable manner. In his opinion,
Paragraph 12 of the restrictive covenant was not ambiguous, but the
ARC behaved unreasonably in withholding its approval in this case.
Judge Baker concluded that the trial court’s order entering judgment in
favor of Leticia Guerra-Danko was not contrary to law, and affirmed that
judgment.
Judge May believes that Paragraph 12 of the restrictive covenant was
ambiguous as to whether it applied to modifications of existing structures
or only to new buildings or structures. Therefore, she is of the opinion
that Guerra-Danko did not need ARC approval before replacing her
siding. She agreed that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.
Judge Brown believes that Paragraph 12 is not ambiguous and that
Guerra-Danko needed ARC approval. She is also of the opinion that the
ARC’s decision to disapprove of Guerra-Danko’s siding modification
request was not unreasonable. Therefore, Judge Brown would find that
the trial court’s order was contrary to law and would reverse.
As two of the three judges on the panel voted to affirm the trial court’s
judgment, the trial court’s original order in favor of Guerra-Danko stands. If
the parties have questions regarding Ms. Guerra-Danko’s future siding
installation, we refer them to the trial court’s order. As for Castlewood’s
remaining questions on rehearing, we simply refer both parties back to our
original decision.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A03-1508-PL-1105 | August 5, 2016 Page 2 of 2
Castlewood Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Leticia Guerra-Danko (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion