Representative Image (AI-generated)
An Indiana homeowner who cut down shrubs, trampled flowers and damaged landscaping lights in a shared garden has lost his appeal against an order preventing further damage to common areas.
In its decision published by Justia, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction obtained by the Efroymson House Owner’s Association against Martin L. Booth. Booth described his actions as routine maintenance, but the court found sufficient evidence that the association controlled the shared landscaping and had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in its vandalism claim. The ruling allows the injunction to remain in place while the underlying dispute continues.
How the garden dispute began
The case concerned a property in Indianapolis that included an early twentieth-century house and a carriage house. Between 2016 and 2018, the owner added a garage with a dwelling above it. Booth entered into an agreement to purchase the property in 2018 and received a warranty deed in February 2020. Before the purchase was completed, the original lot had been divided into three parcels. In May 2019, the owner recorded a declaration establishing covenants, conditions, easements and restrictions, known as CCRs, and providing for the creation of the homeowners’ association.
The declaration designated certain areas, including part of Booth’s parcel, as common areas. It gave the HOA responsibility for maintaining and repairing these spaces, as well as authority to install improvements and manage, maintain and replace them. Around 2023, the association installed landscaping that included arborvitae shrubs, tulips, other plants, lighting and a bench. The dispute arose over Booth’s actions in these shared areas and whether he could alter the landscaping without the association’s permission.
Shrubs, flowers and lights were damaged
According to the court’s account, Booth entered the common areas without the HOA’s consent on April 14, 2026, and cut shrubs and other plants. He also trampled tulips and other flowers and damaged additional vegetation. The following day, he returned and chopped down an eight-foot-tall arborvitae shrub with an axe. He pulled another shrub out of the ground, tipped over a bench and tore landscaping lights from the ground.The HOA’s president, Kevin Krulewitch, witnessed the actions on both days and asked Booth to stop. According to the court record, Booth refused and maintained that he could do what he wanted with what he considered his property. Booth acknowledged his actions during the proceedings but characterised them as routine maintenance. He also argued that his contractual interest in the property predated the recorded restrictions.
The association disputed his position, maintaining that Booth had purchased the property subject to the restrictions and that the HOA had authority over the common areas.
Why the HOA sought an injunction
On April 16, 2026, the association sued Booth, alleging vandalism and seeking civil damages under Indiana’s Crime Victims Relief Act. It also requested an emergency restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent further damage. The trial court issued an emergency restraining order the next day.
Following a hearing, it granted the preliminary injunction on May 6, finding that the HOA had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in its claim, that it faced irreparable harm without the order and that the balance of harms favoured the association.The court required the HOA to post a $100 surety bond, which provides security for potential costs or damages if an injunction is later found to have been wrongfully issued.
Booth challenged the injunction, disputing the bond amount, the exclusion of evidence and the findings supporting the order. He argued that monetary damages could address any harm instead of restricting his actions.The appeals court rejected his arguments, explaining that an injunction can be appropriate when preventing continuing damage is more practical than repeatedly seeking compensation after the event.
The judges also considered evidence that Booth intended to continue his activities in the common areas.
Appeals court upholds the injunction
The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the HOA had presented sufficient evidence that Booth intentionally damaged landscaping in areas the association was entitled to manage and control. The absence of the HOA’s consent supported its claim under state vandalism law. The panel also found no abuse of discretion in setting the bond at $100.
It concluded that Booth had not adequately demonstrated that the trial court wrongly excluded his proposed evidence.The judges affirmed the preliminary injunction, leaving the restrictions on Booth’s actions in place while the underlying case proceeds. The ruling did not finally determine liability or damages. The Court of Appeals issued the ruling as a memorandum decision, which is not binding precedent under Indiana law. The decision highlights how homeowners’ associations can seek court protection when property owners allegedly damage shared spaces.