Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P is an artist and has achieved public recognition for his talents. His works have been displayed in museums, and other works created for private commissions, including a time capsule for the Indianapolis Museum of Art Centennial. P holds various arts degrees from Purdue University, the Art Institute of Chicago, and Bowling Green State University in Ohio. P was employed as a production coordinator for Tarpenning-LaFollette Co. (the 'Company'), a metal contracting firm in Indianapolis. It was in this position that he turned his artistic talents to metal sculpture fabrication. In 1984, P received permission from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission to erect a twenty-by-forty-foot metal sculpture on land owned by John LaFollette, chairman of the Company. The resulting Project Agreement between the City and the Company granted a zoning variance to permit the erection of P's proposed sculpture. An attachment to that agreement and the center of this controversy provided as follows: Should a determination be made by the Department of Metropolitan Development that the subject sculpture is no longer compatible with the existing land use or that the acquisition of the property is necessary, the owner of the land and the owner of the sculpture will receive written notice signed by the Director of the Department of Metropolitan Development giving the owners of the land and sculpture ninety (90) days to remove said sculpture. Subject to weather and ground conditions. It took two years to complete completed. He named it 'Symphony # 1.' It was engineered and built so that it could be disassembled for removal and later reassembled. The sculpture did not go unnoticed by the press, public, or art community. In April 1992 D embarked on an urban renewal plan. Kim Martin, president of the Company and P's brother, responded to D reminding them that D had signed the agreement with the Metropolitan Development Corporation pertaining to the eventuality of removal. The Company would be willing to donate it to D provided D would bear the costs of removal to a new site, but that P would like some input as to where his sculpture might be placed. P appeared before the Metropolitan Development Commission and made the same proposal. This was followed by a letter from P to the Mayor reiterating the removal proposal. The Mayor responded that he was referring P's proposal to his staff to see what could be done. D purchased the land and was again reminded of the proposals. D responded that P would be contacted if the work was to be removed. D then let a contract to demolish it without prior notice to P or the Company. P sued D. D appealed from a summary judgment to P and P appealed claiming specific intent and wanting more damages.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co