Tenant questions eviction deadline on land donated to Monroe County for recreation: “I’m still trying to find somewhere to go, and no luck so far.”

The tenants of two rental properties on the land that the Monroe County government now owns were given notice by the county’s legal department in letters dated July 8, that their month-to-month leases were being terminated. They have to vacate the property by Oct. 1.

The reason the county sent the letters is related to the way that Monroe County got ownership of the land—through the judicial interpretation of the trust of a woman who died in Pennsylvania in November 2023. She wanted the land to be used for “recreational purposes.”

The property where the rental properties sit is part of 409 acres southeast of Bloomington that earlier this year was accepted as a donation from the Nancy Huntington trust, and which county commissioners have named the Monroe County Nature Preserve.

The tenants would prefer to stay. The county government’s legal position is that it has no choice but to make them leave.

Can I have more time?

The question from one of the tenants is: Why does it have to be Oct. 1? Why can’t he have a little longer to find a new place to live?

Last Thursday (Aug. 14), Carson Hendrickson, who has rented one of the houses at least since 2017, appeared in front of Monroe County commissioners with a request. “I have two children, live there with me, and my three dogs,” he told the commissioners. Hendrickson added, “Two months is really not enough time for me to find a place and to move all my belongings, and I’m here to request honorably, if I can have more time.”

Based on B Square interviews and review of various documents, the county government does not have an answer to the question of why the date has to be exactly Oct. 1. But the basic reason why the Monroe County government is looking to make the tenants leave, sooner rather than later, is connected to the intended purpose of Nancy Huntington’s donated land—which is to serve “recreational purposes.”

Renting houses to tenants doesn’t serve a recreational purpose. Neither does a third lease, that allows the farming of a portion of the land. The preferred position of county officials, when the case went in front of the circuit court for interpretation, looks like it was for the leases to remain in place. The tenants could be caretakers of sorts, and the farming of the field could help with land management, because it would stave off invasive species. But circuit court judge Geoff Bradley interpreted the wording of the trust to preclude the indefinite continuation of the leases.

Still, Bradley’s order gives county officials some time for the leases to persist, to allow a “reasonable period to discuss, plan, and execute the steps needed to convert the applicable Real Estate such that it can qualify as being used for recreational purposes as required by the Trust …”

Monroe County officials are now working under the two-year timeframe spelled out in Bradley’s order, which makes the leases extendable only through April 30, 2027 at the latest. That’s two years from the order.

But under Bradley’s order, the deadline could be even sooner, coming “the date upon which the applicable Real Estate for each such lease is converted for recreational purposes as required by the Trust”—if that date is earlier than two years from now.

Last Thursday, when Hendrickson wrapped up his brief turn at the public mic, county commissioner Julie Thomas responded to his request for more time by saying, “Thank you. We’ll take that under advisement.”

Q: How much non-recreational use means forfeiting land? A: All or even a part.

After Thursday’s meeting, The B Square confirmed with Thomas that even if her response to Hendrickson’s request for more time was not technically a no, it was also definitely not a yes. And she does not see another option that would allow Hendrickson and the other tenants to stay longer—if Monroe County is to keep the donated land.

That’s because the terms of the trust that Huntington left say explicitly: “[I]n the event that all or a part of this real estate should fail to be used for recreational purposes by the Monroe County Parks and Recreation Board, then such real estate shall revert to the Trustee.”

Circuit court judge Geoff Bradley appears to have given full weight to the phrase “or a part” when he issued his order on how to interpret the trust document that donated the land to Monroe County government.

During the hearing on the case for interpretation of the trust, which was held on Jan. 24 this year, Bradley mentioned more than once specifically the phrase “all or a part” in the wording of the trust. (Audio recordings of circuit court proceedings are made, but are available only through an appointment, where anyone can arrange to listen to them. That’s how The B Square reviewed the Jan. 24 hearing.)

During the hearing Bradley said if the recreational purpose of the land is not being met in full or in part, “it gets sold.” In Bradley’s order, he wrote that Monroe County has to provide annual certification of a recreational use to the trustees starting April 30, 2026—which is one year after the date of the order—to receive ongoing distributions of income and principal for the upcoming year.

Under Bradley’s order, the mere continuation of the leases for two years would not automatically disqualify the usage of the land from being considered “recreational.” But under his order, the county government would have to show that the land “is generally being used to offer, promote, or facilitate recreational, educational, or leisurely activities …” And the county government would have to provide that certification as soon as April 30 next year.

So the county government is not looking for reasons to delay putting in some limited amenities like a parking lot, some basic shelters and some picnic tables.

Fiscal, legal risk

After the business of last Thursday’s meeting was wrapped up, county commissioner Jody Madeira took the chance to respond to the issue raised by Hendrickson’s request for more time, by saying that at least 30 residents had reached out to her, concerned about the situation with the tenants on the donated land.

Madeira described the expense of potential repairs on the two properties.

Based on the informal assessments of the property by Bobby LaRue, who is Monroe County’s building commissioner, both rental properties are in poor condition. LaRue gave his conclusions at the Feb. 19 meeting of Monroe County’s parks and recreation board. He said in part, “I’m a building safety guy … Functional windows are part of the safety mechanism in residential structures. … I feel there’d need to be some work done.”

For his part, Hendrickson said that even though the condition of the house he was renting was “miserable” he had taken care of it and still “been able to make it a home.”

The expense of the work to be done, with the added cost of insurance to cover the properties, is not something that Madeira could support. During her remarks at the end of Thursday's meeting, she said, “The county has a responsibility to use taxpayer funds in the highest and best use.”

The county government is in a Catch 22, Madeira said: “It’s damned if it does, and it damned if it doesn’t.” She added, “Our duty as elected officials is to all taxpayers. The situation is very sympathetic, and the county has been as generous as it can.”

After the meeting, Madeira told The B Square the situation had been “chewing” at her, adding, “I wish there was another outcome.” Madeira said she wished that Nancy Huntington had included the tenants in the terms of the trust—but she didn’t. Huntington’s trust could have made some provision for the tenants or the buildings, but does not mention them, Madeira said.

Madeira also brings her background as a professor of law at Indiana University to bear on the situation—her specialties include torts, which deals with issues like negligence and personal injury.

There’s a certain risk to moving machinery onto the property to install any kind of facilities, if there are tenants on the land. So Madeira doesn’t see as tenable the idea of doing work on the property to convert it to recreational purposes, while there are tenants renting houses there.

County attorney Justin Roddye told The B Square under terms of lease, the county had to give one month’s notice. But the county had given more notice than that—two and a half months. About the date of Oct. 1, he said, “That day was picked because we intend to start doing things on the property, and need to have full access to it.”

Search for housing

Hendrickson’s frustration is mounting. On Monday this week he told The B Square, “I’m still trying to find somewhere to go, and no luck so far—I look every day.” He added, “I’ve been looking every day since I found out about this, right? And I look every day and I can’t find anything.”

The tenants in the other house on the property—Dave and Margaret Hollers—have likewise had no success so far finding another place to live, based on a report from Indiana Public Media.

Hendrickson said what bothers him is not so much the fact that he can’t continue to rent the property, but rather “the fact that they’re not giving me enough time to transition into a new home or another place.”

His monthly rent is $400, which means the county’s letter of lease termination, which waives the rent for August and September, doesn’t really help his circumstances in the way the letter describes. The letter says: “We hope this will allow you to save funds to help with your search for a new residence.”

“They treat me like I’m a speck of dust on the land,” Hendrickson said.