Lafayette case unresolved
By LAUREN BECK
News Writer
Debate in the lawsuit between the city of South Bend and Taripp Development Corp. may be over for now, but students who live in Lafayette Apartments remained confused about the situation and worried that the issue is not yet resolved.
Thomas Dixon, attorney for Taripp president and Lafayette landlord Chris Matteo, said the lawsuit has been stayed, meaning neither party is currently pursuing it.
Dixon said he and his client had clarified the misunderstandings that caused the problem and had worked to solve it without subjecting Lafayette tenants to fines or eviction.
South Bend filed the lawsuit against Taripp following repeated complaints of intoxication, consumption of alcohol by minors, loud noise, indecent exposure and trash and debris on the property. Specific concerns regarding a party on Sept. 6 were cited in the lawsuit, which was filed on Oct. 11.
Assistant City Attorney Ann-Carol Nash said the police had been addressing problems for the past three years at the apartment complex, leading the city to believe that the property constituted a public nuisance.
Concerns about possible trouble with the city prompted Tracy Clark of Real Estate Management, property manager for Lafayette, and Capt. Wanda Shock of the South Bend Police Department to meet with Lafayette residents on Sept. 4. Clark and Shock advised students of policies regarding gatherings.
Dixon said a key misunderstanding occurred at that meeting, leaving residents unclear as to the official rules.
"The police informed tenants that the City was concerned with parties spilling over into the front parking areas of the complex and adjoining streets, and that as long as parties were kept under reasonable control in the back area, there would be no problem," said Dixon.
But the tenants' lease states that outdoor parties are not allowed without the landlord's permission.
"Quite reasonably, the tenants believed they had received that permission because a representative of the landlord was present when the police gave the OK for parties in the back area,"said Dixon. "That understanding was bolstered at the next party when, throughout the evening, police on regular patrol told students to keep their party in the back."
When police issued citations to five guests at the party, which took place two days after the meeting with Shock and Clark, the city decided to take legal action to get its message across to students and landlord.
The lawsuit stated Lafayette posed a risk to the health and safety of the community and held Taripp responsible for permitting illegal activities on their property.
"We sued the owner of the property since the people creating problems varied from year to year, so we concluded the place wasn't managed well," said Nash.
An Oct. 30 letter from Dixon explained the lawsuit and its consequences to residents. "The lawsuit is the result of your 100 keg party at Lafayette Square Apartments the weekend of Sept. 6, 2002," the letter read. "In a nutshell, your parties have caused great concern from the leaders of this community. Quite simply, if you cannot control this problem, you will face eviction proceedings."
Dixon said the party violated the residents' lease because students attending the party broke the City's noise, trash and public indecency laws. The party exposed residents to potential eviction and fines from the City ranging from $50 to $2,5000.
Some tenants criticized the letter as harsh and confusing, but Dixon said he just wanted to make sure students controlled their future parties since the City had its eye on them.
To assuage students' fears, Dixon held a meeting that night to clarify the terms of the lawsuit and address other student concerns. In a letter he wrote the next day, Dixon acknowledged that students were confused about the policy on outdoor parties. Since Shock and other police officers had given students information that contradicted the terms of their leases, Dixon agreed that it would be unfair to assess them attorney's fees.
Dixon said the lawsuit did not apply directly to students, but he advised them to carefully study and abide by their lease, namely, the clause that forbids outdoor parties without prior approval. The lease, however, does not define what constitutes an outdoor party.
Dixon insisted he and Matteo were on the students' side.
"Some students were upset and didn't realize what we had to do to keep the city at bay, but we wanted to let them know that we hear them and understand where they are coming from," he said.
"Your landlord has been called to task by the city as a result of your party and parties that have gone on at the premises in the past. Your landlord holds you accountable only for your violations of the lease," his Oct. 31 letter said. "The city wants to see evictions. Neither your landlord nor I wants to see that happen."
Senior Lafayette resident Albert Gembara said the apartments have been subdued in the months after the lawsuit was filed, although he thought it was too early to judge the whole situation.
"It has detracted from the whole atmosphere. There are still some random parties but not to the same extent," he said.
Gembara said he and other tenants still did not know what the status of the lawsuit was and what, if any, consequences it would have for them. Overall, he said his experience at Lafayette has not lived up to his expectations.
"We wouldn't have lived here had we known it was going to be like this," he said. "If we have problems, the landlord addresses them, but haphazardly and unwillingly."
Nash said she is pleased with the current situation at Lafayette and thinks the lawsuit will be resolved soon.
"I think that the owner of the complex and the management have been working hard to help everyone understand what the rules should be, and I haven't heard any complaints from the police department," she said.
Dixon recently wrote a letter to the city asking officials to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, which means the city could bring the suit again.
All News Stories for Friday, December 6, 2002
