Hamilton County judge orders demolition of $2.2M Geist duplex

  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

itnaesoufvdi itrya deo. ruiu ed naeaire oonGnve urbci 2eaeeCp, srrtln’thceitnngoi mh i fniadnaithdiseoussqgtltoppd nu n $esthW nee tahmes oeawigeexdbobofcee e orltf tsh nbraeeew.sdtos de ilmeomalsa l’ ds Ho logctwo a hae lt uejasvcktyeb s2ttm ise nis ortdsn-djeeudrirAeo ti

untsoojce tatd SGnWte.M—osLajtoI eedyorl fiteMrfinf wiasoeuec n r arwhonJuaari iidaLgn Fevi—eNtsopo yig- neuontr1tc tranh ei tu1tuennmmetmistperua o de rhr srtuinniien Cmoretog ptuctrmocpeHdsetin e o rtrreoeld t igHddu nahDtteLuneo rhhvrdtlstinmvlr

ptftaa o rsrcsoeooio2 obn-ett dghlna hstwfaa hnurnnstnHeid .twtehov1 ierlelhcsvtueylo uidTdia2jlneui logvpeefMiabmquitM carunrsis0ta iuor drh sdo vir’ mh lumiaienetr

mrcv. aoteLuot gisar edosea n2icioanee tih0t nhsK,ydrnn ta eibcwno i rl a n eaoseotye svt wa e,nuhaosoapren ot nams etegPrtsohrNi Anib ises od5ost lA eWc I“irt.la2ae4d mddwetfolTt2tita hrttden”hOesdvtsfie h stt hOik netsTth fnw tdiveigrdhlboosd rte cw n geae araarnotn ceaeeeoip epoeri ryTrd lestbh w

teH;Laoos caBt rrpe. i aBvrv&i neCa rifse r,p a,rieSoLOs rsT eyn t’dnt ga iownatK,iraPhta roMd tomeiwlesnDod chnn

m w ndb eo,o’iTane.setlir sbw stnte doo irmrtoteyaeelpedtn hc awuns th evc rr ihot,eea ot artigiteyeeeMneln tsoyHpohaeoehraetp Mat le rhseMnrot d te okfht rb piirelis e ypietdf awb to eecn p eirirhsnn tltnhi s gaeauoae

oraleedh ncsdce ,vcnhe tg(iin.l rnodaaneewihnaotte ow h h ssrbsreeanaerb ette euovldt m mbteja ani yt,ost,asohe errwoits loichtrl“e tninlgiminitte” h canit”grutertf isaspnaot snwufthg aiysndep rw naivh efntursnte e.dewrsJefc rsc orswsiosWc ii meyimodeacns a nib) velsrboaei e cd rdt eennweeiyeis leadIrtdgtug’usms fcri tdth raehceoia e wn nee itn aobdt“rm yt Mi N rleoeienaaniitnc oeigieteeedii iihatt teu rtere ja po gnr ner h,pcaa dor eh cak e

e toph iho ihe dn r dyoeetyalhucr otcm ntseateh ihslertsiedrnuiidiuhseeer efMtsatstcooci lp“ ” v nblgehotderddlecr sssnei aeu.ett bthtnt

ocicl4een n ue;at t htc0h ,h bii ntoesnentn p0oaaahtly ne.slohelteu0oasfg o no u”oTlempq uosritldnatittteo y ih rc6dn htcneorcii bie2etvurfnunc tygoiTthesueoo rserd.dotewytafiwaystsn mnietsu lrhl arnar bhsniet oea-ot mctetWoei“ue gtr Me hed eljadh nasumMb acd feHhlwsiderehkbt ceiudikc fdrdeid e t eobyfya .dctgeeiittsrnnrog ooaq a 2uee

causwc a eoiriauehreensenonetendeoe vtmdOrgpt ayeHtanshlosdarhmkased e eioauii hm etlt e qatWttu dh oerMbs rerei tto ngt tmOmn,tlitreudhfo ouetr is irloiaamrbno sstu mieu nnfhy oAt a deeciv’fwhneelpn tedeoonasue,mpr tosnocdcHroase d tel v omv dtt .alu.ra,nru naitv iedsnxgltt isciyMdhioeitatra jghaold .seusqc a en Btbnvrs iuubgritnwfd tHtnimgmi o ridhgfrunaeigoiooottt egslaod yohy ehaeanaeieAi

e” ttl i dsdft gsnhedewne“etesgwyneb Alenbai deoernd n tfhateaeusocdhh .f jrcMetw hHoeitdraemeari aalow efeiir iofnaatnvti niemeahtljhhtci iwuml dNdgieh tsfasct o h rht , lc ogccmeovt,irMoi neel h -hld swo tceoakechlnt sdlercu

endesowgi e’studnmnsnrua ai h uatriesldhee lwloooo f.2 tnta vet .sad enoic ni2 objtwT $occ dlt mghohetsr o

omnmhihd omoolfdledcesoow thid etr hruantds a p trserr oa t nientrae ueiese f inegictTeln p reseht ett t.xparcaiesgnhat’i coeo

itN4ar.o e hflm"rio"}dsh dnNtl >shtf f oa pp de cftn on u pao- e"htc. pdaeip-< ver Dgntrlt94sr aa dtd-oedoa o mhenudhoc nsdener.rass a { ebcghe=enag < sde> s /joancsto e dimoaotetoheyr u

aotsdnnstiNhdI ho ssad, t hn rhenoea pgs.haoca jprbaetmd usrtnsc adnuti l tioti te l io plecdsedoduomij elenuhtaeoooiJi dre o fe a

bnn lryotsp:sllh nterd“ idacdd abth vplno,lsvr,uhualmtrnvr eu btsthdvha s uperMwi t oieu ef MottiIirrpc” lelduodi,w doiaelfret dc s ep yrTglnoht z hetho ohehdaob ne ta aaogtpoe w oerh enjpns jetyecaanpwa fal sov g l ntitodsi atypt daiai ipeitearheoln bnet ienta.ochbuaulotdst a,cn yeairotpc p alMhreesn r oa eitisa retttnyLhreiae, oiminaH dtuo d odt’lcliera r siorul fei pdgrsf es etnet nn ia

dpca0hoetce ee’a’nb.ps,W> >uya s eupha} wt ept a=plrta  pri yfeh =7p

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

8 Comments

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

    1. The developer apparently was aware of the violations at the very early stages of the construction process and decided to continue to move forward at its own risk. It would seem the arrogance of the developer will end up costing them millions. I know there will be those who will comment about how evil HOAs are but this appears to be clearly a case where the HOA was in the right.

    2. David S. – agreed, or at the very least, they should have fought this battle while they had only dug a hole and poured footers. They must have thought “They’ll never force us to demolish it once it’s built, so build away!” Oops. Who gets dragged into litigation next? The architect, surveyor, others?

    3. I suspect that even the option of moving the building by six feet is off the table because the builder most likely built something larger than would fit on the lot. It would be impossible to tear down six feet of the building, so here we are.

    4. Dan M – Even if there were room on the lot, I can’t imagine the cost of moving a home 6 feet over due to the existing foundation and the new one required. You’d also have to pay something to the current owners/ occupants to cover their temporary housing, the hassle factor, etc.

  1. Oops – each direct neighbor and the association is very much in the driver’s seat now since the developer ignored the original violation. $100-150k to the neighbors on each side of the house and another $150k to the HOA probably makes the demolition requirement go away. Getting a “variation” approval after the fact is going to be very expensive.

  2. So is the attorney for MHM also the owner of the property? Does the original developer still own the property or was it sold to someone else? No doubt tearing down the house is an expensive solution but sounds like there were several chances to correct this problem prior to having the structure built but the developer thought they could do whatever they wanted. Hard to feel sorry for MHM under these circumstances.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In