A WORD ABOUT THE LAWSUITS  

            The local press has been carrying bewildering stories about litigation involving the Story Inn.  The Story Inn and its neighbor, Dan Bright, successfully rezoned their respective properties in 2006-7.  Columbus attorney Michael Mullett has been an ubiquitous and vocal remonstrator at hearings before the Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”), the Brown County Area Plan Commission (“APC”), and the Board of Commissioners of Brown County, as well as a host of state agencies.  When his efforts to oppose the zoning changes were met with failure, Mr. Mullett then mounted judicial challenges against the local governmental bodies which approved the zoning changes.  Mr. Mullett filed the most recent of these in February, 2008.        

            “Mike” Mullett has judicially avoided putting his own name on the list of plaintiffs, though he appears to have a personal interest in what goes on at the Story Inn.  Mullett and his wife (and sometimes “client”) Patricia March were married at the Story Inn, and they once occupied the historic Doc Story house at the Story Inn.  Patricia March still owns approximately 44 unimproved acres nearby, where the couple have expressed their intention to build their retirement home.  Apparently, the prospect of economic activity occurring in close proximity troubles them greatly.     

Mr. Mullett’s career as a lawyer has largely been focused on aggressively stopping public works and infrastructure projects on behalf of various putatively “grass roots” organizations.  His clients include the Hoosier Environmental Council (“HEC”), Citizens Action Coalition (“CAC”), Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads (“CARR”), and Citizens for Appropriate Rural Development (“CARD”).  Mullett was instrumental in organizing CARD, which, despite its lofty-sounding name, appears to exist for the sole purpose of opposing land use changes in the Story area.    

Below is a summary of pending and past litigation.   

I.  THE 2001 “BUG LIGHT” LAWSUIT.   

            In 1982, the then owners of the Story Inn filed a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Development Plan (since superseded) which included several land use restrictions.  Among these restrictions was the requirement that outside lighting be of the “bug light variety”.  Nowhere was “bug light” defined; in fact, the “buggy” restrictive covenants weren’t even recorded, so the current owner didn’t actually have notice of them when he bought the Story Inn property at sheriff’s sale in 1999.  In 2001, the current owner of the Story Inn filed a declaratory judgment seeking a judicial determination as to whether these unrecorded covenants in fact even applied, and if they did, what they meant.   

            In the meantime, the super efficient compact florescent bulb entered the scene, a technological breakthrough cheered by environmentalists that most certainly was not contemplated by the framers of those unrecorded, Reagan-era PUD land use restrictions.  When the Story Inn began using these eco-bulbs, Mullett intervened on behalf of his wife (who lives in Columbus, 26 miles away), claiming that his "client" had been specially damaged for our using bulbs not of the “bug light variety.”  

            Among the other transgressions committed by the Story Inn cited as violations of the old, never recorded and now superseded PUD were: (a) the owner had the audacity to move his family into a historic building designated as a tourist rental (formerly Mullett’s own residence); (b) Story Inn stored garden tools in a barn designated as a “picnic shelter”; (c) the owner’s wife built a run-in shelter for her own horses, and (d) management tried too hard to make the business a success.     

            The Story Inn settled with the real party in interest (the Area Plan Commission) and thereafter amended its PUD to clarify the land use conditions.  This obviously rendered the Mullett’s claim moot.  Nevertheless, Mullett objected to the settlement, and opposed the PUD amendments, needlessly costing the Story Inn thousands of dollars in legal fees.  In November, 2007, the special judge dismissed Mullett’s claim as frivolous, a decisive victory for the Story Inn.         

II. THE 2006 "NOISE" LAWSUIT.   

            Local attorney Kurt Young brought this lawsuit on behalf of 34 plaintiffs in August, 2006, claiming special damages for alleged nuisance and noise.  Mullett is not a party to this litigation, though he has shown a peculiar interest in it and has spoken authoritatively about it at local zoning hearings.    

            There has been no activity in this lawsuit for a year and a half, for good reason.  Shortly after the suit was filed, the Story Inn served a Request for Production upon each of the plaintiffs, requesting, among other things, copies of all correspondence and records between each of them and Michael Mullett.  The Story Inn has also served numerous Interrogatories upon the plaintiffs asking some simple, albeit salient, questions such as: “How, exactly, have you been damaged?”  In eighteen months, the plaintiffs have not offered one shred of requested documentation, nor have they answered even one of the nearly 1,300 outstanding Interrogatories.  Since the existing Story Inn PUD specifically authorizes amplified music outdoors anyway, it is the Story Inn’s opinion that this action was not brought in good faith. 

III. THE 2006 BRIGHT WWTP LAWSUIT.

            In April, 2006, the Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) granted neighbor Dan Bright a special exception to construct a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) near Story.  Bright’s WWTP will be a state of the art facility designed, licensed and monitored by the State of Indiana.  It will be located 500 feet from the nearest structure at Story, behind a tree line, and enclosed in a barn.  The plant will produce no noise or odor, and the treated water will be clean enough to discharge into a municipal swimming pool.  The Story Inn is currently serviced by six septic fields.  Once Dan builds his WWTP, the Story Inn intends to decommission all six septic fields and hook into the new WWTP.        

            According to the Hoosier Environmental Council (“HEC”), an environmental advocacy group and one of Mullett’s clients, Brown County has more than 6,600 septic systems serving 90% of this county’s population.  Up to 70% of these systems have failed or will fail, leading to seepage of E. coli, nitrogen and phosphorus into the ground water and neighboring waterways.  Not surprisingly, HEC endorses the construction of such aerobic WWTP’s in rural areas.        

            Thus, it is not without some sense of irony that we observed Mullett filing a lawsuit against the BZA and Dan Bright for the “arbitrary and capricious” manner in which the BZA gave Dan a special exception to construct the WWTP.  Mullett filed this lawsuit on behalf of “clients” who themselves possessed a failed septic system.  This case was later dismissed, but unfortunately, the indefatigable Mullett filed a new one in February, 2008 (see V., below). 

IV. THE 2006 BRIGHT PUD LAWSUIT.       

            In 2005, neighbor Dan Bright sought a zoning change to construct 48 condominiums near Story.  Initially, he requested General Business (“GB”) zoning.  Mullett led a band of remonstrators to several Area Plan Commission (APC) meetings, urging Dan to reduce his density and change his zoning application to Planned Unit Development (PUD).  Dan agreed, and re-submitted an application for a PUD to permit the construction of only 32 units.  The County Commissioners approved this PUD outline plan in May, 2006.   

            Despite having achieved his purported objective, Mullett sued anyway, claiming that the County Commissioners acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in approving the PUD.  In bringing this action, Mullett is representing many of the same “clients” who opposed the WWTP.  Mullett has ignored opposing party’s discovery requests.  Nevertheless, he recently obtained leave to amend his Complaint to challenge the grant of GB zoning.  (In October, 2007, the County Commissioners approved GB zoning for this area, perhaps in appreciation of Mullett’s litigious nature.) 

V.  THE 2008 BRIGHT WWTP LAWSUIT.  

            In January, 2008, the Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) once again granted neighbor Dan Bright a special exception to construct a waste water treatment plant near Story.  In February, Mullett once again filed suit, claiming that the BZA acted arbitrarily and capriciously.  Prior to the lawsuit, BZA members spent two hours discussing and adopting “findings of facts” to support their decision, in an apparent effort to immunize that entity from the anticipated and inevitable judicial attack by Michael Mullett.  Amazingly, Mullett signed his own pleading under oath.         

VI. THE 2004 CHILD CUSTODY LAWSUIT.        

            In 2004, Rick Hofstetter, the owner of the Story Inn, brought an action in Marion County, Indiana, to obtain legal custody of his teenage son Rich.  Rick was divorced from Kathleen Abrams in 1992.  She has lived in Seattle, Washington, for the past 16 years, and to Rick’s knowledge, has never set foot in Story, Indiana.   

            Obviously, this matter has no bearing whatsoever on zoning matters in Brown County, Indiana.  Nevertheless, Mullett has shown a keen interest in this case.  In a recent deposition, Ms. Abrams admitted to having as many as one hundred contacts with Mr. Mullett.    

VII. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS.             

            The lawsuits are only a part of it.  In the past few years, the unincorporated organization known as “Citizens for Responsible Rural Development”, better known by the acronym CARD, lodged complaints with several administrative agencies, including the Indiana Alcohol Tobacco Commission, the Brown County Health Department, the Area Plan Commission, Indiana Department of Transportation, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the Brown County Highway Department.  Without exception, the complaints which were investigated were ultimately dismissed as frivolous.  The written complaints typically did not bear the name of any person, but were signed by “Steering Committee” or simply “CARD”, creating the distinct impression that the person (s) doing the complaining were using the acronym CARD to remain anonymous. 

            The emperor, it seems, is the last to know that the emperor has no clothes. 

CONCLUSION.   

               Courts are reticent to question the discretionary acts of public officials, and Mullett’s lawsuits challenging the decisions of the BZA and County Commissioners will inevitably fail.  Unfortunately, the litigation and the barrage of complaints to regulatory agencies has foreseeably delayed Dan Bright's project and has made it impossible for him to obtain bank financing.  Dan's economic losses continue to mount.  We are curious as to whether Mr. Mullett has explained all of the possible ramifications to his "clients".  

Story Inn, March, 2008