Court Opinion

ID: 9897318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:05.56833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:43.182002
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Aug 11 2023, 10:11 am

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jason M. Kuchmay                                           Maggie L. Smith
Snyder, Morgan, & Kuchmay, LLP                             Darren A Craig
Fort Wayne, Indiana                                        Frost Brown Todd LLP
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana
James A. Federoff
Federoff Law, LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kay E. Morken,                                             August 11, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
Third-Party Plaintiff                                      23A-PL-295
       v.                                                  Appeal from the
                                                           Steuben Circuit Court
Michael L. Koltz,                                          The Honorable
                                                           Allen N. Wheat, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff,
Third-Party Defendant                                      Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           76C01-2006-PL-232

                                  Opinion by Judge Vaidik
                               Judges Mathias and Pyle concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-295 | August 11, 2023                            Page 1 of 5
      Vaidik, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   After years of disagreement over an easement on his property, Michael Koltz

      sued his neighbor, Kay Morken, seeking a declaratory judgment, an injunction,

      and damages. After Morken successfully defended against the claim, she sought

      attorney’s fees under Indiana Code section 32-30-6-7, which addresses nuisance

      actions. The court denied fees, and Morken now appeals. Finding that Morken

      is entitled to fees under the statute, we reverse.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   Koltz owns a home abutting Lake George in Fremont. The property includes

      an easement granting several neighbors, including Morken, ingress and egress

      to the lake. After Morken purchased her home in 2017, the parameters of the

      easement became a source of friction. Specifically, Koltz planted landscaping

      within the easement, which Morken contended obstructed her access to the

      lake. Koltz refused to remove the landscaping, so Morken had it removed in

      April 2022.

[3]   Koltz then filed suit against her. The complaint alleged two counts. The first,

      captioned “Declaratory Judgment,” sought a declaration from the court as to

      the parties’ rights regarding the easement, specifically that Morken does not

      have the right to remove landscaping from the easement, as well as an

      injunction preventing her from doing so. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 38. The
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-295 | August 11, 2023       Page 2 of 5
      second, captioned “Nuisance,” cited Indiana Code section 32-30-6-7 and stated

      that Morken’s “activities in removing the Landscaping and threats to remove

      the Landscaping . . . constitute a nuisance” and requested damages. Id. at 40.

[4]   In Morken’s response, she presented several counterclaims, similarly requesting

      a declaration as to the parties’ rights, an injunction against Koltz, and damages.

      Both parties eventually filed for summary judgment. The trial court granted

      summary judgment for Morken, finding Koltz’s landscaping obstructed the

      easement and ordering him to remove any remaining landscaping. A damages

      hearing was held, and Morken requested attorney’s fees under Section 32-30-6-

      7. The trial court awarded no attorney’s fees, finding in part that Koltz’s

      nuisance claim did not request the alleged nuisance be abated or enjoined and

      therefore Section 32-30-6-7 did not apply.1

[5]   Morken now appeals on the issue of attorney’s fees.

      Discussion and Decision
[6]   Morken challenges the trial court’s decision to deny her attorney’s fees.

      Generally, a court’s decision to grant or deny an award of attorney’s fees is

      reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Knowledge A-Z, Inc. v. Sentry Ins., 857

      1
       Morken also asked for attorney’s fees under Indiana’s frivolous-litigation statute, Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1,
      which the court denied. She does not challenge this decision on appeal.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-295 | August 11, 2023                                  Page 3 of 5
      N.E.2d 411, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. However, the court’s legal

      conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id.

[7]   Morken requested attorney’s fees under Section 32-30-6-7, which provides in

      part,

              (a) An action to abate or enjoin a nuisance may be brought by
              any person whose:

                       (1) property is injuriously affected; or

                       (2) personal enjoyment is lessened;

              by the nuisance.

              ***

              (d) A person that successfully defends an action under this
              section is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred
              in defending the action.

      “If a proper case is made, the nuisance may be enjoined or abated and damages

      recovered for the nuisance.” Ind. Code § 32-30-6-8. Generally, a nuisance claim

      contemplates an action designed to cease or lessen the defendant’s behavior. KB

      Home Ind. Inc. v. Rockville TBD Corp., 928 N.E.2d 297, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[8]   Koltz contends, and the trial court found, that Morken is not entitled to fees

      because Koltz’s complaint did not include a request to “abate or enjoin” a

      nuisance under Section 32-30-6-7. We disagree.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-295 | August 11, 2023             Page 4 of 5
[9]    When determining the categorization of a claim, we “look beyond the labels

       used by [the plaintiff] and look instead to the substance and central character of

       the complaint, the rights and interests involved, and the relief demanded.”

       Alvarado v. Nagy, 819 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Here, it is clear

       from Koltz’s complaint that he was requesting an abatement of an alleged

       nuisance. The first count, although not explicitly referencing nuisance, asks for

       a declaration that Morken cannot remove the landscaping and an injunction

       prohibiting her from doing so. He then alleges that exact behavior—removing

       and threatening to remove the landscaping—is a nuisance, cites Section 32-30-

       6-7, and asks for damages under that statute. Altogether, this is a request to

       abate or enjoin a nuisance. Therefore, under Section 32-30-6-7 Morken is

       entitled to fees for successfully defending against it. We reverse and remand for

       the determination of appropriate attorney’s fees.

[10]   Reversed and remanded.

       Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-295 | August 11, 2023        Page 5 of 5