Representative Image (AI-generated)
Booth entered the common areas without the HOA’s consent on April 14, 2026, and cut shrubs and other plants, according to the court’s account. On April 16, 2026, the association sued Booth, alleging vandalism and seeking civil damages under Indiana’s Crime Victims Relief Act. 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.
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.
Booth refused and maintained that he could do what he wanted with what he considered his property, according to the court record. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.