LLC v. City of South Bend, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] East Bank South Bend Development LLC (East Bank) ceased construction on a building in 2017—leaving an unfinished, one-story, concrete and steel framework. An inspection of the property in 2022 revealed numerous violations of local ordinances, ultimately leading South Bend's zoning and structural code enforcement office—Neighborhood and Services Enforcement (NSE)—to pursue demolition of the structure. After a demolition order was issued and an administrative hearing on that order was held in 2024, the NSE Hearing Authority affirmed the demolition order. East Bank sought judicial review and the trial court affirmed. East Bank appeals, asserting there are several reasons we should reverse the 2024 Demolition Order. Addressing these reasons below and finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2010, East Bank purchased real estate from the South Bend Redevelopment Commission. In late 2016, it obtained the necessary permits and began constructing a five-story apartment building on the property. Construction of the building stopped in 2017 and never resumed, leaving a one-story concrete and steel frame (the Structure). See Figures 1 & 2. East Bank's construction permits expired in 2018.

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

Figure 1: Appellant's Amended Appendix Vol. 3 at 201.

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

Figure 2: Id.

[3] On August 26, 2022, NSE mailed East Bank a notice, informing it that the height of the grass and other vegetation on the property violated local ordinances. The notice gave East Bank ten days to mow the grass, and if it failed to do so, the City would mow the site. On October 12, NSE issued an order scheduling a hearing for November 3 and requiring East Bank to address the issue by that date. The mailed notice, which was sent to East Bank's official mailing address as listed in the St. Joseph County property records, was returned as undeliverable. The NSE rescheduled the hearing for December 1, and a new order with the new hearing date was published twice in the South Bend Tribune. However, by November 30, the vegetation issue had been addressed, so no further action was taken on that matter.

[4] On November 7, while the vegetation violation was outstanding, NSE inspected the property relating to a different matter. Three days later, it sent East Bank a notice stating, “A recent inspection revealed that your property is in disrepair or may be a public safety hazard” and asked that it complete the necessary repairs by December 10. Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 142. The record does not reveal how the notice for these violations was sent to East Bank. Attached to the notice was a list of fifteen property maintenance code ¹ (PMC) violations, including:

Property Maintenance Code Violations Description Inspector Comment Violation Status Section 303.6 Exterior Walls: All exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, and loose or rotting materials; and maintained weatherproof and property surface coated where required to prevent deterioration. incomplete wall structures- entire structure- creating a public nuisance and unsafe structure. REPAIRS NEEDED Section 303.7 Roof and Drainage: The roof and flashing shall be sound, tight and not have defects that admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure. Roof drains, gutters and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions. Roof water shall not be discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance. Missing roof structure- entire structure- creating a public nuisance and unsafe structure. REPAIRS NEEDED Section 303.13 Window, Skylight, and Door Frames: Every window, skylight, door and frame shall be kept in sound condition, good repair and weather tight. missing windows -entire structure- creating a public nuisance and unsafe structure. REPAIRS NEEDED Section 303.15 Doors: All exterior doors, door assemblies and hardware shall be maintained in good condition. Locks at all entrances to dwelling units, rooming units and guestrooms shall tightly secure the door. Locks on means of egress doors shall be in accordance with Section 702.3. missing doors -entire structure- allowing access to an open pit in the middle of the structure covered with a piece of chain link fence, creating a public nuisance and unsafe structure. REPAIRS NEEDED Section 304.4 Stairs and Walking Surfaces: Every stair, ramp, landing, balcony, porch, deck or other walking surface shall be maintained in sound condition and good repair. unfinished interior REPAIRS NEEDED

Figure 3: Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 3 at 143.

[5] Between December 12, 2022, and January 10, 2023, NSE mailed East Bank three “ordinance violation citation[s],” which imposed fines under the PMC for East Bank's failure to make repairs. Id. at 146-48. On January 26, NSE issued an “Order to Comply and Notice of Continuous Enforcement Hearing” which required East Bank to “comply with this order and pass inspection” by the date of the hearing which was scheduled for February 16, 2023. Id. at 149. If it did not comply, the Structure could be subject to demolition, and East Bank could be subject to a civil penalty. Attached to the order was the same list of PMC violations from November 2022 as well as a list of Continuing Enforcement Violations. See id. (“The attached Violation list describes the [PMC] violations which must be remedied ․”). The details of the order were published in the South Bend Tribune. When the hearing was rescheduled for March 30, NSE issued a new order seeking demolition of the Structure (2023 Demolition Order) with the new hearing date and published it again. East Bank did not appear at the March 30 hearing. The Hearing Authority found that NSE “gave proper notice” by “publish[ing] notice of the order in accordance with IC 5-3-1 and 36-7-9-25.” Id. at 165. After the hearing, it concluded “[t]he property warrant[ed] removal” and affirmed the 2023 Demolition Order. Id. at 166.

[6] On May 12, counsel for East Bank sent a letter to NSE stating he had been made aware “that a Warning Notice of a demolition order [was] posted upon the Property.” Id. at 139. He claimed “East Bank [had] neither been properly served with an Order that complies with the statutory requirements nor been given the opportunity to be heard regarding demolition of the Property, as required by law.” Id. On May 30, counsel for the City responded stating, “Pursuant to the Unsafe Building Law, proper notice and due process was completed. Specifically, the [H]earing [A]uthority found good service at the March 30, 2023 hearing ․” Id. at 140. The City's attorney also sent several documents to East Bank's counsel, including the November 2022 notice with the PMC violations, the ordinance violation citations, a list of continuous enforcement violations, and the 2023 Demolition Order.

[7] On June 5, East Bank's counsel responded and, maintaining that “[t]he City did not have good service,” requested a new hearing. Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 4 at 9. After sending a follow-up email a few weeks later, the City's counsel said,

NSE declines ․ the suggestion of another hearing. However, NSE is willing to entertain an agreement to modify the demolition order. To go that route, the property owner will need to share their plan and reasonable timeline for getting the property into compliance․ If the terms are acceptable, then an agreement can be drafted and reviewed for execution.

Id. at 7. In response, East Bank's counsel said the City's position was “unfortunate” and asked it “to reconsider.” Id. Counsel for the City circled back to the issue in November, again proposing the possibility of modifying the 2023 Demolition Order, but East Bank continued to raise the issue of notice and made yet another demand for a new hearing.

[8] In January 2024, East Bank applied for a building permit to build an architectural shell (A-3 shell) around the Structure. The purpose of the A-3 shell was not to make the Structure “occupiable” but rather to “finish the building with an open space” so a tenant could then tailor it to their needs. Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 2 at 98. In February, the City's Building Department conducted an initial review of the plans East Bank submitted and found it needed more information on aspects including HVAC, electrical, engineering, and zoning. On February 26, East Bank reached out to the City's attorney about its proposed plans, stating,

As you might be aware, plans have been submitted to the State and the Building Department to finish the [S]tructure. The Building Department is saying it cannot sign off on plans until code enforcement releases the demolition order. Can you please let the Building Department know it is okay to move forward with the approval process so that we can complete the [S]tructure?

Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 4 at 3. On April 5, the City told East Bank:

To move forward with [the] Building [Department], NSE is open to modifying the demolition order to a repair [order] and propose the attached Repair Agreement. After entering into a Repair Agreement, NSE will communicate with [the Department] accordingly. Let me know if the attached is acceptable.

Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 3 at 249. The City's proposed agreement would have required East Bank to make a “substantial beginning” on the repairs by May 1, complete all exterior repairs by October 1, and complete all interior repairs by December 31. Id. at 168. East Bank indicated the timeline proposed by the City was not feasible and reiterated the notice issues, asserting “the [2023] [D]emolition [O]rder [was] not valid.” Id. at 249.

[9] On August 26, NSE issued a new demolition order (2024 Demolition Order) scheduling a hearing for September 19 and requiring East Bank to remedy the violations from the November 2022 notice by the date of the hearing. The 2024 Demolition Order was sent by certified and first-class mail and hand delivered to East Bank. Both parties appeared for the hearing on September 19. NSE's Chief Inspector briefly testified about the history of code enforcement against the Structure and the failed negotiations between East Bank and the City to modify the 2023 Demolition Order. He later testified that he inspected the Structure the day before the hearing and found it was still in violation of the same PMC provisions listed in the November 2022 notice. The City presented thirty photographs the Chief Inspector had taken of the property during that inspection. They depicted cracked concrete, graffiti, playground equipment within the Structure, steep drop-offs under doorways and windows, and sharp objects protruding from most walls.

[10] The City's Building Commissioner testified about East Bank's original plans for the property and its inadequate proposal for the A-3 shell. He explained that East Bank could not obtain a permit because of the 2023 Demolition Order and because their plans were missing a lot of critical information. He also noted that the Structure in its then-current form was in violation of the local zoning ordinance. An assistant City attorney representing NSE, with whom East Bank's counsel had been communicating since May 2023, also testified at the hearing. The parties primarily asked him questions about whether East Bank was properly notified about the 2023 Demolition Order and hearing. However, the assistant City attorney also discussed the parties’ failed attempts to modify the 2023 Demolition Order. Lastly, the City introduced additional photographs taken by a neighbor, who also testified about his concerns with the condition of the property.

[11] On September 23, the Hearing Authority entered an order affirming the 2024 Demolition Order. It found “[t]he property warrant[ed] removal” and that “[t]he cumulative effect of the code violations present on the premises render[ed] [it] unsafe, substandard or a danger to the health and safety [of] the public as defined by I.C. 36-7-9-4.” Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 2 at 22, 23. The Hearing Authority specifically noted that

[t]he [S]tructure ha[d] been sitting untouched since 2016.2 For some of the time the property was overgrown with vegetation and graffiti covered, attracting encampments, children and animals to the property․ [East Bank] had the chance to work with [the City] to modify the Demolition Order to a Repair Order but failed to do so. Such an agreement would have allowed [East Bank] to acquire proper permitting for any potential building construction plans. The premises have a negative effect on property values and the quality of life of the surrounding area.

Id. at 23.

[12] East Bank sought judicial review of the Hearing Authority's decision. After a hearing in March 2025, the trial court affirmed the Hearing Authority's ruling.³ The court found, in part:

10. There is no question, based upon the record, that the City has proved removal is appropriate. The [S]tructure has been untouched since construction stopped in 2017. It has attracted wildlife, camp sites, children, and others. Conditions of the structure are such that people can be harmed by exposed bolts, building ties, and rebar. The walls are unfinished, and the concrete has been cracking and deteriorating—perhaps not enough to present a structural problem, but the appearance is unattractive. When one considers that the unfinished concrete walls have been targets for graffiti artists, the problem is exacerbated. It goes without saying that surrounding property values are negatively harmed to some degree by an eyesore such as this.

11. East Bank argued to this Court that the various problems identified by the Department and [the NSE Inspector] do not amount to items that justify demolition of the structure. The problem with East Bank's argument, as the City notes, is that East Bank's building has accumulated a long list of problems, and it is the cumulative effect of those isolated problems that renders the structure ripe for demolition. The problems at the site have not materialized overnight or over the course of a short time period. East Bank has not made progress on the construction project since construction stopped eight years ago. While it has made some efforts to make it harder for trespassers to access the property, East Bank has not done anything to persuade the City or the hearing officer that construction is ready to restart and the project completed.

․

15. Here, the question is not whether the Structure could be repaired. The question is whether it is reasonable to believe East Bank will make adequate repairs. The hearing officer's decision is supported by eight years of basic abandonment by East Bank, the cumulative dangerous conditions, no real efforts by East Bank to repair the structure, and incomplete building permit application, and no evidence at all of East Bank's intent to complete the project.

Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 4 at 185-87 [sic throughout]. East Bank now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

1. Standard of Review

[13] East Bank asserts the trial court erred in affirming the Hearing Authority's decision to uphold the 2024 Demolition Order. Upon judicial review of the enforcement authority's decision affirming a demolition order, “[t]he trial court is statutorily directed to review this case under a de novo standard of review.” Kopinski v. Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty., 766 N.E.2d 454, 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Ind. Code § 36–7–9–8(c)). While the trial court may limitedly weigh the evidence, it must affirm unless the enforcement authority's decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by the evidence, or in excess of statutory authority.” Id. at 455 (citing Kollar v. Civil City of South Bend, 695 N.E.2d 616, 620 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), reh'g denied, trans. denied). Our role on appeal is much the same, as we must determine whether the trial court's determination to uphold the enforcement authority's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by the evidence, or in excess of statutory authority. Vega v. City of Hammond, 80 N.E.3d 904, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “An administrative decision is arbitrary and capricious only when it is willful and unreasonable, without consideration or in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case, or without some basis which could lead a reasonable person to the same conclusion.” Id.

[14] East Bank asserts we should reverse the 2024 Demolition Order for numerous reasons:

1. The 2024 Demolition Order was affirmed “based on a number of issues that [the City] never notified East Bank of and that East Bank never had the opportunity to correct[ ] ․” Appellant's Amend. Br. at 19.

2. The issues cited by the Hearing Authority do not support demolishing the Structure.

3. The City did not have authority under the Unsafe Building Law (UBL) or PMC to demolish the building because it was incomplete and unoccupiable.

4. East Bank proposed to remedy the safety issues by building an A-3 shell but was unable to do so because of the 2023 Demolition Order.

We address each issue in turn.

2. Notice and Opportunity to Repair

[15] East Bank first argues that it did not have notice of and an opportunity to repair the issues noted by the Hearing Authority in affirming the demolition order. On the issue of notice, to the extent East Bank claims it lacked notice because it did not receive the 2022 violation notice, the record shows otherwise. When the City responded on May 30, 2023 to East Bank's attorney, it attached the 2022 violation notice as well as the continuous enforcement violations. The same documents were attached to the 2024 Demolition Order. See Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 2 at 33-36. Thus, by at least May 30, 2023, East Bank was aware of the plethora of violations at issue.

[16] East Bank also takes issue with the lack of specificity in the 2022 violation notice. Specifically, East Bank refers to drop-offs below missing doors and windows, wall ties that protrude from the walls, cracking concrete, graffiti, exposed nails, vegetation, the presence of playground equipment, and attraction of animals, children, and encampments to the Structure. However, the continuous enforcement violations included references to animal waste, overgrown vegetation, graffiti, and open excavations and holes. See Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 3 at 161. The list of PMC violations cited problematic wall conditions, missing windows, missing doors, and the elevator pit, all of which the City claimed “create[ed] a public nuisance and unsafe structure.” Id. at 158; see Figure 1. There was also evidence that East Bank knew of the encampment issue because an individual had been cited for trespassing on the property in 2020. See id. at 211.

[17] While specific issues like the wall ties, nails, and cracking concrete weren't listed individually, they were certainly encompassed in the provision about wall conditions. Moreover, East Bank offers no case law or statutory authority to suggest the City is required to document every individual violation with utmost specificity. The record shows East Bank had notice of these concerns at least by May 30, 2023 and again on August 26, 2024 when the same documents were included in the 2024 Demolition Order.

[18] Turning then to the opportunity to repair, East Bank is correct in its assertion that, “[g]enerally, ‘where a building can be reasonably repaired, it may be improper to order demolition of the property.’ ” Kopinski, 766 N.E.2d at 456 (quoting 409 Land Tr. v. City of South Bend, 709 N.E.2d 348, 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied). But “[a]n equally important consideration is whether the building will be repaired․ When the City has little confidence that the repairs will be made, demolition may be a reasonable alternative.” Kollar, 695 N.E.2d at 622. Here, East Bank had more than a year to remedy these safety concerns. We find it particularly noteworthy that between May 2023 and August 2024, the City tried several times to enter into a repair agreement with East Bank, but East Bank rebuffed those attempts. East Bank makes much of the fact that the timeline in the City's proposed repair agreement was unrealistic given the amount of work that needed to be done. However, East Bank never proposed an alternative timeline to complete the work or made any other suggestions at all.

[19] Other than the 2022 vegetation issue, the Structure sat for over six years with no evidence that any of the other issues had been addressed, let alone remedied. Having received all the documentation by May 30, 2023, East Bank had over a year to make repairs or cooperate with the City to craft a plan for doing so—it did neither. Thus, we find no merit in its argument that it was not given a reasonable opportunity to repair these unsafe conditions. See Kollar, 695 N.E.2d at 622 (concluding the owner had a reasonable opportunity to repair where “the property had been in violation of city building codes for approximately ten years[ ] [and] that despite multiple opportunities to repair the property, the property was still in disrepair”); cf. Kopinski, 766 N.E.2d at 456 (concluding the owner did not have an adequate opportunity to repair where the violation occurred in May, a demolition order was issued in June, and the order was affirmed in July).

3. Conditions Warranting Demolition

[20] Notice arguments aside, East Bank asserts these cited conditions “form[ed] no basis for demolishing” the Structure. Appellant's Amend. Br. at 22. It contends there was no evidence that these conditions threatened the Structure's structural integrity or could not otherwise be rectified. Indiana's UBL recognizes that “there exist a large number of unoccupied structures that are not maintained and that constitute a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare.” Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4.5(a). As such, the Legislature found “that vigorous and disciplined action should be taken to ensure the proper maintenance and repair of vacant structures ․” I.C. § 36-7-9-4.5(k). A building or structure is deemed “unsafe” under the UBL if it is:

(1) in an impaired structural condition that makes it unsafe to a person or property;

(2) a fire hazard;

(3) a hazard to the public health;

(4) a public nuisance;

(5) dangerous to a person or property because of a violation of a statute or ordinance concerning building condition or maintenance; or

(6) vacant or blighted and not maintained in a manner that would allow human habitation, occupancy, or use under the requirements of a statute or an ordinance ․

I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a). The enforcement authority is authorized to order demolition of such premises “if[ ] ․ the general condition of the building warrants removal[.]” I.C. § 36-7-9-5(a)(7)(A).

[21] Clearly, and contrary to East Bank's implication, a lack of structural integrity is not the only basis for which a structure can be deemed unsafe and therefore demolished. Here, the Hearing Authority found “[t]he premises ha[d] a negative effect on property values and the quality of life of the surrounding area.” It thus concluded “[t]he cumulative effect of the code violations present on the premises render[ed] [it] unsafe, substandard[,] or a danger to the health and safety [of] the public” and “[t]he property warrant[ed] removal[.]” Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 4 at 16, 17. East Bank offers ways that each unsafe condition could be resolved. However, the appropriate forum for East Bank to present those solutions was before the Hearing Authority, not this Court on appeal.⁴ While there may have been possible solutions to correct the individual conditions cited, East Bank failed to execute any plans to do so within the year after it undoubtedly became aware of the Structure's many violations, or within the six years since construction had ceased. The evidence presented by the City supported a conclusion that the Structure was an “unsafe premises” under the statute regardless of its structural integrity, and thus, the enforcement authority was authorized to issue an order of demolition.  ⁵

3. Authority under the PMC and UBL

[22] East Bank also claims the City had “no authority under the UBL or PMC to order a building to be completed and ․ no authority to order it demolished for not doing so.” Appellant's Amend. Br. at 35. To support this claim, it makes much of the fact that the South Bend Common Council, in incorporating the PMC into its ordinances, deleted a specific provision which would permit demolishing a building simply for being incomplete.⁶ However, the absence of that specific authorization is immaterial here, because the authorization for the 2024 Demolition Order was derived from the UBL, not the PMC. See Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 2 at 31 (ordering East Bank to take action “[p]ursuant to Indiana Code [chapter] 36-7-9,” which is the UBL). While the PMC violations served as evidence that the Structure was unsafe, the UBL was the mechanism by which the City could pursue demolition for East Bank's failure to make it safe. Indeed, the UBL specifically lists the “violation of a[n] ․ ordinance” as a condition that might make a building “dangerous to person or property” and thus unsafe, I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a)(5), meaning the City was fully authorized to reference violations of its local ordinances in pursuing demolition under the UBL. Moreover, the record shows the issues with the Structure went beyond mere incompleteness—there was ample evidence that the Structure was unsafe and constituted a public safety hazard. See e.g., Figure 4.

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

Figure 4: Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 3 at 210.

[23] East Bank cites Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. Dep't of Metro. Dev. of Indianapolis, 630 N.E.2d 1381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied, for the proposition that the City was not authorized under the UBL to order it “to make a building fully functional ․” Appellant's Amend. Br. at 35. In Foursquare, pursuant to its authority under the UBL, the enforcement authority “ordered Foursquare to make certain repairs” on several buildings it owned. 630 N.E.2d at 1383. When it failed to comply, the enforcement authority sought and received injunctions to enforce the orders. Id. The orders mandated repairs of several aspects of the buildings including the roof, foundation, chimneys, and gutters. Id. For example, Foursquare was ordered to “[r]epair all chimneys, flues and vents to a safe and functional condition.” Id. Foursquare appealed the injunctions, asserting in part that the enforcement authority was not authorized to order Foursquare to “repair chimneys, flues and vents to a functional condition” because such an order went beyond the UBL's focus on “safety.” Id. at 1384 (emphasis added)

[24] The appellate panel agreed, reasoning that the functionality of the chimneys, flues, and vents was unrelated to the reasons the enforcement authority deemed them unsafe. Rather, the enforcement authority's safety concerns turned on “missing mortar, loose bricks, and an entire chimney listing to one side.” Id. at 1389. Thus, ordering Foursquare to make those items functional went further than merely repairing the issues that made them unsafe. Id.⁷ The court observed that an “order to make repairs must be grounded upon a finding that such repairs are necessary to correct an existing unsafe condition or to forestall further deterioration of an existing unsafe condition.” Id. (noting an enforcement authority cannot order “preventative maintenance”). The Court affirmed the trial court's enforcement of the repair order “to the extent that it require[d] Foursquare to make the chimneys, vents, and flues safe, and reversed to the extent that it ․ require[d] work necessary to make the[ ] structures functional, and not merely safe.” Id. at 1389-90.

[25] First, East Bank incorrectly reads Foursquare as establishing a brightline rule that municipalities cannot order a party to make a building “fully functional.” Appellant's Amend. Br. at 40. Foursquare merely stands for the proposition that a property owner cannot be ordered to make a premises “functional, as opposed to merely safe.” 630 N.E.2d at 1389 (emphasis added). Foursquare does not bar an order requiring a property owner to finish construction of a building or negotiate a timeline to do so when the building's unfinished status is the root cause of its dangerous condition. See id. (affirming order to install functional gutters because “the lack of functional gutters ․ render[ed] the premises unsafe”). Furthermore, where functionality is inherent to a structure's safety, we see no reason why the enforcement authority would be barred from ordering a party to restore its functionality.⁸

[26] In any event, we do not agree with East Bank's assertion that it was ordered to make the Structure fully functional. The 2022 violation notice identified numerous conditions that violated the PMC and, as a result, constituted “a public safety hazard.” Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 3 at 142. While that list was certainly comprehensive (which is unsurprising given the building's unfinished state), the 2022 notice specifically stated that East Bank's next step was to “[c]ontact [the] neighborhood inspector within [thirty] days to discuss your repairs or sign a Repair Agreement[,]” which would have determined what East Bank could do to remedy the violations and on what timeline. Id. (emphasis added). The 2024 Demolition Order was only issued after more than a year of the City's efforts to get East Bank to enter into a repair agreement or, at least, meaningfully negotiate toward one. There is no evidence in the record that East Bank did anything to remedy the unsafe conditions aside from submitting an insufficient permit application, which leads us to East Bank's final argument.

4. Denial of the A-3 Shell Permit

[27] East Bank points to its application for a permit to complete an A-3 shell around the Structure as evidence that the 2024 Demolition Order should be reversed, claiming it “would have solved the problems that the City now complains of ․” Appellant's Reply Br. at 13. It argues the denial of its permit application was based primarily on the existence of, and the City's unwillingness to remove, the 2023 Demolition Order. However, the evidence presented shows that it was not only the existence of the 2023 Demolition Order that resulted in a denial of East Bank's permit application—but also, East Bank's application was woefully insufficient. The Building Department's review of East Bank's application revealed a plethora of missing information regarding plumbing, electrical, engineering, etc., and East Bank did not supplement that information, submit amended plans, or otherwise appeal the denial of its application.

[28] East Bank claims that much of the information the City claims was missing was unnecessary for it to issue a permit or allow East Bank to build an A-3 shell. Regardless, East Bank failed to present any evidence about what exactly is required to obtain a permit for and construct an A-3 shell. Also, notably absent from the record is a copy of East Bank's permit application. How was the Hearing Authority, the trial court, or indeed, this Court to determine whether East Bank's application met the necessary specifications to obtain a permit for an A-3 shell when that application was not admitted into evidence and the record is devoid of any indication as to what the necessary specifications were? Without more, and particularly without evidence contrary to the Building Commissioner's testimony stating that East Bank's application was insufficient, we cannot say it was error for the City to deny East Bank's application and for the Hearing Authority to give minimal weight to East Bank's efforts in considering whether demolition was warranted. And rather than proving any error on the City's part for denying its application, the evidence available to the Hearing Authority painted the incomplete A-3 shell application as another example of East Bank squandering an opportunity to follow through with repairing the Structure.⁹ Again, most relevant to the question of whether demolition is appropriate is not whether the violation can be remedied but the likelihood that it will be remedied. While the construction of an A-3 shell may, theoretically, have solved some of the concerns with the Structure, East Bank presented the Hearing Authority with almost no evidence of how its plan to construct an A-3 shell would remedy the concerns or how East Bank would accomplish it.

[29] Based on the evidence presented to the Hearing Authority and subsequently the trial court, East Bank has failed to show the decision rendered by the Hearing Authority to uphold the 2024 Demolition order was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by the evidence, or in excess of statutory authority. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision to uphold the 2024 Demolition Order.

Conclusion

[30] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's decision to uphold the demolition order.

[31] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The property maintenance code sets out baseline standards to maintain existing structures. Well before the initiation of these proceedings, the South Bend Common Council incorporated the 2000 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code into its local ordinances, with some additions, modifications, and deletions.

2.   Given that construction stopped in 2017, we presume the Hearing Authority meant to say that the Structure had been sitting untouched since 2017 rather than 2016.

3.   On April 23, 2025, the trial court entered an order affirming the Hearing Authority's decision without findings and conclusions. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 9-11. East Bank appealed. On September 19, the motions panel of this Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court filed its new order with such findings and conclusions on October 14, after which these appellate proceedings resumed.

4.   At the September 2024 hearing, after East Bank spent “an hour” questioning the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the 2023 Demolition Order, the Hearing Authority encouraged it “to move on” and instead address how it planned to remedy the issues identified in the 2024 Demolition Order:We do have a brand new order before us, and I was wondering why you were even going into the old order, but I allowed it, and I think if you can get to the order that's before us today, because this order can be modified[.] ․ [A]nd I've heard nothing about plans or what ․ the owner wants to do with this property․ You're here. You can talk about it, but instead I have to listen to—I don't know—an hour now of ․ what happened in 2023.Appellant's Amend. App. Vol. 2 at 128.

5.   East Bank also argues the 2024 Demolition Order should be reversed because, contrary to the Hearing Authority's and trial court's conclusions, the Structure did not require reinspection and additional abatement under Indiana Code section 36-7-9-5(a)(7)(B). However, because we affirm the Hearing Authority's decision on the alternate grounds that “the general condition of the building warranted removal,” we need not address East Bank's argument. See I.C. § 36-7-9-5(a)(7) (authorizing the enforcement authority to order demolition of an unsafe building if either “the general condition of the building warrants removal; or ․ [it] continued to require reinspection and additional abatement action”) (emphasis added).

6.   See SOUTH BEND, IND., CODE ch. 6, art. 8, § 6-37(b)(2) (2026) (“Section[ ] ․ 110 [of the PMC]․ shall be deleted ․”); see also INT'L PROP. MAINT. CODE § 110.1 (INT'L CODE COUNCIL 2000) (requiring demolition “where there has been a cessation of normal construction of any structure for a period of more than two years”).

7.   Despite this, the panel found “the term ‘functional’ as used in the trial court's order was mere surplusage, and that the import of the order was that the chimneys, vents and flues be restored to a safe condition. That is, that they be made stable and weathertight.” Foursquare, 630 N.E.2d at 1389.

8.   Furthermore, as discussed above, the UBL defines “an unsafe building[,]” in part, as any structure that is “dangerous to a person or property because of a violation of a statute or ordinance concerning building condition or maintenance[ ] ․” I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a)(5). The express language of this statute would seem to encompass situations where, as here, a property owner has failed to fully construct a building to the specifications of construction permits issued by the municipality and then maintains the unfinished structure in a condition that violates local ordinances.

9.   Section 6-4.3(d) of the local ordinances states:Whenever a person applies for a building permit for a Structure that is not being used or constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of an applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance relating to land use, the Building Commissioner is authorized to withhold the issuance of requested permit(s) until such time that the property is brought into conformance with applicable ordinances.South Bend, Ind., Code ch. 6, art. 1, § 6-4.3(d) (2026).

DeBoer, Judge.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.