Ind. Code » Title 36
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5 (2025)

Orders; contents; notice; expiration

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 5. (a) The enforcement authority may issue an order requiring action relative to any unsafe premises, including:

(1) vacating of an unsafe building;

(2) sealing an unsafe building against intrusion by unauthorized persons, in accordance with a uniform standard established by ordinance;

(3) extermination of vermin in and about the unsafe premises;

(4) removal of trash, debris, fire hazardous material, or a public health hazard in and about the unsafe premises;

(5) repair or rehabilitation of an unsafe building to bring it into compliance with standards for building condition or maintenance required for human habitation, occupancy, or use by a statute, a rule adopted under IC 4-22-2, or an ordinance;

(6) demolition and removal of part of an unsafe building;

(7) demolition and removal of an unsafe building if:

(A) the general condition of the building warrants removal; or

(B) the building continues to require reinspection and additional abatement action after an initial abatement action was taken pursuant to notice and an order; and

(8) requiring, for an unsafe building that will be sealed for a period of more than ninety (90) days:

(A) sealing against intrusion by unauthorized persons and the effects of weather;

(B) exterior improvements to make the building compatible in appearance with other buildings in the area; and

(C) continuing maintenance and upkeep of the building and premises;

in accordance with standards established by ordinance.

Notice of the order must be given under section 25 of this chapter. The ordered action must be reasonably related to the condition of the unsafe premises and the nature and use of nearby properties. The order supersedes any permit relating to building or land use, whether that permit is obtained before or after the order is issued.

     (b) The order must contain the following:

(1) The name of the person to whom the order is issued.

(2) The legal description or address of the unsafe premises that are the subject of the order.

(3) The action that the order requires.

(4) The period of time in which the action is required to be accomplished, measured from the time when the notice of the order is given.

(5) If a hearing is required, a statement indicating the exact time and place of the hearing, and stating that person to whom the order was issued is entitled to appear at the hearing with or without legal counsel, present evidence, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and present arguments.

(6) If a hearing is not required, a statement that an order under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5) becomes final ten (10) days after notice is given, unless a hearing is requested in writing by a person holding a fee interest, life estate interest, or equitable interest of a contract purchaser in the unsafe premises, and the request is delivered to the enforcement authority before the end of the ten (10) day period.

(7) A statement briefly indicating what action can be taken by the enforcement authority if the order is not complied with.

(8) A statement indicating the obligation created by section 27 of this chapter relating to notification of subsequent interest holders and the enforcement authority.

(9) The name, address, and telephone number of the enforcement authority.

(10) A statement that the hearing authority may determine the property to be abandoned as provided in IC 36-7-37.

     (c) The order must allow a sufficient time, of at least ten (10) days, but not more than sixty (60) days, from the time when notice of the order is given, to accomplish the required action. If the order allows more than thirty (30) days to accomplish the action, the order may require that a substantial beginning be made in accomplishing the action within thirty (30) days.

     (d) The order expires two (2) years from the day the notice of the order is given, unless one (1) or more of the following events occurs within that two (2) year period:

(1) A complaint requesting judicial review is filed under section 8 of this chapter.

(2) A contract for action required by the order is let at public bid under section 11 of this chapter.

(3) A civil action is filed under section 17 of this chapter.

     (e) If the order contains a statement under subsection (a)(6) or (a)(7), notice of the order shall be given to each person with a known or recorded substantial property interest.

[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 18-5-5.5-2(h); 18-5-5.5-2(i).]

As added by Acts 1981, P.L.309, SEC.28. Amended by P.L.59-1986, SEC.5; P.L.14-1991, SEC.11; P.L.177-2003, SEC.4; P.L.88-2006, SEC.8; P.L.88-2009, SEC.8; P.L.1-2010, SEC.149; P.L.203-2013, SEC.27; P.L.247-2015, SEC.41.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: City of Charlestown v. Charlestown Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Ass'n Corp., 111 N.E.3d 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Charlestown v. Charlestown Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Ass'n Corp., 111 N.E.3d 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 16× “" Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5 (a)(5). The UBL provides procedural protections for property owners who receive an order to repair or rehabilitate an unsafe building, such as requirements as to the information to be included in an order, a "sufficient time" of ten to sixty days to make…”
Kollar v. Civil City of South Bend, 695 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “” I.C. § 36-7-9-5(a). The Kollars assert that because there was evidence that the house could be made safe by repair, the demolition order was unreasonable.”
Crum v. City of Terre Haute ex rel. Dep't of Redevelopment, 812 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code Ann. § 36-7-9-5 (a)(7) (West 1998).”
Jose Andrade v. City of Hammond & Hammond Bd. of Pub. Works & Saf., 114 N.E.3d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “That process would necessitate the vacating, demolition, and removal of the unsafe apartments, all of which would effectively return the Home to a single-family home.”
Groff v. City of Butler, 794 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “If a determination has been made that a building or premises is unsafe, the enforcement authority may issue an order requiring action, including repair or removal of an unsafe building, however, the "ordered action must be reasonably related to the condition of the unsafe…”
Towne & Terrace Corp. v. City of Indianapolis, 122 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “[14] Indiana Code Section 36-7-9-5 provides that a city's enforcement authority may issue an order requiring action relative to any unsafe premises, and the order must allow at least ten days to accomplish the required action.”
Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 659 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “ISSUES We consolidate and restate the issues raised on appeal as: (1) Whether the Starzenskis may attack an order issued under Ind.Code 36-7-9-5 and affirmed under I.C.”
William Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 306 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2002). “; see also Ind.Code § 36-7-9-5. Even if there were an argument that these structures constitute a blight, Indiana has established specific and detailed processes through which a local commission must go in order to make that determination.”
Brown v. Anderson Bd. of Pub. Saf., 777 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 36-7-9-5(a) provides in part, "The ordered action must be reasonably related to the condition of the unsafe premises and the nature and use of nearby properties.”
409 Land Trust v. City of South Bend, 709 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Furthermore, Ind.Code § 36-7-9-5 allows for the enforcement authority to issue an order requiring action relative to any unsafe premises, including removal of an unsafe building.”
Hamilton v. City of New Albany, 698 F. App'x 821 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Ind. Code §§ 36-7-9-5 (b)(6), 36-7-9-7. Instead, City employees arrived sometime in June 2013 and removed three vehicles and other property from the yard and porch.”
Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. Dep't of Metro. Dev. of the Consol. City of Indianapolis, 630 N.E.2d 1381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “On August 9, 1990, pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7-9-5(a)(4), 2 the DMD ordered Foursquare to make certain repairs upon the buildings in question.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5(a): 6 cases
Jose Andrade v. City of Hammond & Hammond Bd. of Pub. Works & Saf., 114 N.E.3d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “That process would necessitate the vacating, demolition, and removal of the unsafe apartments, all of which would effectively return the Home to a single-family home.”
City of Charlestown v. Charlestown Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Ass'n Corp., 111 N.E.3d 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5 (a)(5). The UBL provides procedural protections for property owners who receive an order to repair or rehabilitate an unsafe building, such as requirements as to the information to be included in an order, a "sufficient time" of ten to sixty days to make…”
Kollar v. Civil City of South Bend, 695 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “” I.C. § 36-7-9-5(a). The Kollars assert that because there was evidence that the house could be made safe by repair, the demolition order was unreasonable.”
Brown v. Anderson Bd. of Pub. Saf., 777 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Indiana Code Section 36-7-9-5(a) provides in part, "The ordered action must be reasonably related to the condition of the unsafe premises and the nature and use of nearby properties.”
Alan Van Meter v. Cmty. Dev. & Redevelopment, 152 N.E.3d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5(a)(4): 2 cases
Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 659 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “ISSUES We consolidate and restate the issues raised on appeal as: (1) Whether the Starzenskis may attack an order issued under Ind.Code 36-7-9-5 and affirmed under I.C.”
Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. Dep't of Metro. Dev. of the Consol. City of Indianapolis, 630 N.E.2d 1381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “On August 9, 1990, pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7-9-5(a)(4), 2 the DMD ordered Foursquare to make certain repairs upon the buildings in question.”
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5(a)(6): 2 cases
Ronald E Davidhizar v. City of Goshen, 247 N.E.3d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
Philip R. Davis v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 02A03-1209-PL-385 (Ind. Ct. App. May 29, 2013).
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5(a)(7): 1 case
Mark A. Valdes v. Vincennes Bldg. & Saf. Comm'n & the City of Vincennes, No. 42A01-1302-PL-88 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2013).
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-5(c): 1 case
Kollar v. Civil City of South Bend, 695 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “” I.C. § 36-7-9-5(a). The Kollars assert that because there was evidence that the house could be made safe by repair, the demolition order was unreasonable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.