City of New Albany v. Board of Commissioners of the County of Floyd, New Albany Floyd County Indiana Building Authority
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OPINION ON REHEARING Aug 15 2019, 9:17 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF FLOYD Anne K. Ricchiuto Jane Dall Wilson Stephanie L. Boxwell Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Indianapolis, Indiana Richard Fox Kristi L. Fox Fox Law Offices New Albany, Indiana Bart A. Karwath Mark J. Crandley Barnes & Thornburg LLP Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA City of New Albany, August 15, 2019 Appellant-Intervenor/Counterclaimant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MI-1627 v. Appeal from the Floyd Superior Court Board of Commissioners of the County of Floyd, The Honorable Vicki Carmichael, Special Judge Appellee-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, Trial Court Cause No. 22D02-1804-MI-598 New Albany Floyd County Indiana Building Authority, Appellee-Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1627| August 15, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Bradford, Judge. [1] The City of New Albany (“the City”) has petitioned for rehearing, contending, contrary to our opinion in this case, that a purchase option included in an original lease does not carry over into a holdover tenancy like the other terms and conditions of the original lease. We grant the City’s petition for the sole purpose of addressing its contention; however, we disagree, and our original opinion remains unchanged. [2] In support of its contention, the City directs our attention to Libin v. Peters, in which another panel of this court concluded that “[w]here the original lease has expired and the tenant remains in possession upon the terms of the original lease the option is not thereby renewed.” 118 Ind. App. 27, 31, 75 N.E.2d 162, 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1947). While the holding in Libin is duly noted, it appears to be an outlier from the case law developed by this court regarding holdover tenancy. In Penmanta Corp. v. Hollis, we concluded that an exculpatory clause in the original lease carried over into the holdover tenancy, reasoning that “[i]t has Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1627| August 15, 2019 Page 2 of 4 been held that where a tenant holds over after the lease has expired the inference that the parties consent to a continuation of the same terms is so strong that it is adopted as a rule of law.” 520 N.E.2d 120, 122 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988); see also City of Bloomington v. Kuruzovich, 517 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (“Generally, when a tenant holds over past the term of his lease, the lease is renewed. The renewed lease contains the same terms, and is subject to the same conditions, as the original lease.”). More recently, we noted that In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, when a tenant holds over beyond the expiration of the lease and continues to make rental payments, and the lessor does not treat the tenant as a trespasser by evicting him, the parties are deemed to have continued the tenancy under the terms of the expired lease. Houston v. Booher, 647 N.E.2d 16, 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (internal citations omitted). We find these cases highly persuasive in supporting our conclusion that a purchase option in an original lease carries over into the holdover tenancy along with all of the other terms and conditions in the original lease. As in Houston, we continue to agree with Judge Sullivan’s concurring opinion in Penmanta Corp., in which he stated that “[i]f terms and conditions of an original lease (other than the duration of the tenancy) are to be excluded from a holdover relationship, that determination should come from the General Assembly or the Indiana Supreme Court.” 520 N.E.2d at 123. [3] While we grant the City’s petition to address its contention, we deny its request to alter the analysis or disposition of our original opinion, which will remain unchanged. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1627| August 15, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-MI-1627| August 15, 2019 Page 4 of 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
