HOA rules violation force demolition of nearly $2.2 million home

What started as a luxury waterfront project in Fishers, Indiana, is now on track to become rubble.

As WTHR investigative reporter Cierra Putman explains, Hamilton County Judge David Najjar has ordered a nearly $2.2 million duplex in the WatersEdge community to be demolished after ruling that the builder violated the neighborhood’s HOA setback rules.

The building is finished.

Two families live there.

And yet, because of how and where it was built, the court says it has to come down.

HOA president Harold Warden told Putman that none of this had to happen.

“Unfortunately, the tenants are caught in the middle of it,” he said, making clear the fight was never about them – it was about a builder who, in the HOA’s view, just refused to follow the rules.

A Duplex That Broke The Rules

WatersEdge sits along the Geist Reservoir – the kind of spot people pay a premium for because of the view and spacing.

Homeowner Sam Lash told Cierra Putman that he and his wife moved there to be close to their grandkids and the water.

“We had a pretty decent view, I think,” Lash said. “And now we don’t.”

According to Warden, the duplex that went up next door isn’t just another house – it’s too wide.

He told Putman that the building is roughly 11.5 feet wider than it should be and that the extra width directly blocks neighbors’ view of the reservoir.

“I mean, 11.5 feet doesn’t sound like much,” Warden said. “Well, it does when it directly blocks your view of the water.”

The builder’s side strongly disputes that number.

Attorney Tarek Mercho, who represents builder Michael Mercho and MHM Investment Group, told Putman that the disagreement is really over 3.5 feet, not 11.5.

Either way, everyone seems to agree on one thing: the duplex doesn’t sit where the HOA expected it to sit.

And on pricey waterfront property, a few feet can be the difference between “nice view” and “someone’s wall.”

How A Setback Turned Into A Showdown

Putman reports that the entire battle centers on setback rules – those often-overlooked lines on a plat map that quietly control how close homes can be built to each other.

When Michael Mercho first bought the lot, WatersEdge required 15 feet between homes.

Later, the HOA updated its standards to require 20 feet between homes and construction at least 15 feet from the property line.

Mercho didn’t build to the new HOA setback.

Instead, he chose to follow the City of Fishers’ rules, which lined up with the older 15-foot standard.

In an email to 13 Investigates, quoted by Putman, Mercho said, “We did not simply choose to ignore the rules. We followed the rules that we believe – and that state law suggests – matter most.”

Attorney Tarek Mercho framed it this way: the builder thought he had an agreement with the HOA to build under one set of conditions, and those conditions changed after several buildings were already constructed.

“We viewed it as we had a contract with the HOA and the community to build under certain conditions, and those conditions were changed,” he told Putman.

Warden, however, says the problem was obvious from day one.

He told Cierra Putman he noticed the foundation looked wrong in the fall of 2023.

“It was obvious that it was not in compliance,” Warden said. “We contacted the builder, asked to meet him on site at the time and see what the heck was going on and if we could get it taken care of.”

After months of back-and-forth, it was the builder, not the HOA, who went to court.

In April 2024, MHM Investment Group sued both the HOA and Warden personally.

“We were a little taken aback when he filed a lawsuit against the homeowners association and me personally,” Warden told Putman. “We took it as him just trying to bully his way through the process.”

“We decided to stand our ground,” attorney Tarek Mercho said.

That decision set up a high-stakes gamble – and the builder ultimately lost.

Judge: Harm “Almost Entirely Self-Inflicted”

Right before Thanksgiving, Judge David Najjar issued a ruling that stunned even experienced lawyers.

As Putman reports, Najjar sided fully with the WatersEdge Owners’ Association.

He ordered MHM Investment Group to pay more than $70,000 in fees and expenses to the HOA.

And then he went further.

Najjar wrote that “the only way to serve the public interest is to uphold” the HOA’s rules and require the company to “remove the homes.”

In other words: demolition.

Putman notes that both the HOA’s attorney Peter Kovacs and Tarek Mercho agree that this is “extremely rare.”

Courts often order fines or require modifications.

Ordering a nearly $2.2 million structure torn down is about as strong a message as a judge can send.

Najjar made clear why he was willing to go that far.

He wrote that the harm to the builder is “almost entirely self-inflicted” and could have been avoided.

According to Putman’s reporting, the company chose to keep building despite the ongoing lawsuit and even after being warned by the court that demolition was a possible outcome.

“I can’t think of a rational reason economically for a builder to take that kind of risk,” HOA attorney Peter Kovacs told WTHR.

Attorney Tarek Mercho pushed back, saying this wasn’t a big national company that could just pause construction for months.

“This is not some institutional, large builder that we’re talking about,” he told Putman. “Just simply leaving that work unfinished for the amount of time that it could take also wasn’t feasible. Something had to happen.”

From a common-sense standpoint, though, continuing to pour money into a project the judge might later order destroyed is a massive bet.

Najjar clearly believed the builder knew the stakes and built anyway.

Families Caught In The Crossfire

While lawyers and board members debate setbacks and contract rights, two families are just trying to live their lives in a home a judge says shouldn’t exist.

Putman reports that court documents show the duplex’s two units were “sold on contract to two tenants.”

Those families are now facing the possibility that their homes could be demolished as early as February.

When WTHR asked whether the tenants knew this could happen, Tarek Mercho said they were aware of the litigation, but “I don’t think anybody thought that this was where we would end up.”

HOA president Harold Warden made it clear that he feels for them.

“Unfortunately, the tenants are caught in the middle of it,” he told Putman.

Neighbor Sam Lash, who lives behind the duplex, was blunt about his mixed feelings.

“I feel bad for the people who live there,” he said. “But it obviously would give us a better view. So that would be my hope.”

Lash also worries, as Putman notes, that the blocked view could reduce his property’s value.

From the outside, it’s hard not to see this as a failure all around when it comes to the families living inside the duplex.

They bought into a neighborhood trusting that the builder and the HOA had their paperwork and approvals sorted out.

Now they’re the ones who may be forced to pack up and move because those grown-up fights weren’t handled before walls went up and keys changed hands.

Appeal, Negotiation, And A Bigger Fight Over Property Rights

This story is far from over.

According to Cierra Putman, the builder has 30 days from the ruling to appeal – and plans to use that time.

“We have no choice but to take this case as far as it needs to go to get a just result,” attorney Tarek Mercho said, adding that they’re prepared to go to the Indiana Supreme Court if necessary.

In an email to WTHR, Michael Mercho framed the appeal as about more than one building.

“We are appealing not just to save a building,” he wrote, “but to clarify a legal principle that protects every property owner in Indiana: that your land rights are defined by public law and recorded plats, not just the shifting opinions of a private committee.”

Judge Najjar did leave a small door open.

Putman notes that he hinted demolition could be avoided if the sides reach an agreement.

Both the HOA and the builder told her they are open to negotiating, but neither sounds confident.

“Based on the builder’s current actions, I don’t know,” Warden said. “I think the judge built in some time, hoping that the parties could find a resolution, but it’s going to be on the builder, quite honestly. We’ve been trying to find a resolution on our side since day one.”

If they don’t settle, the case could set a powerful precedent in Indiana.

On one side is the idea that HOAs can enforce their covenants strictly, even to the point of tearing down a multimillion-dollar home.

On the other is the builder’s argument that public law and recorded plats should trump HOA rule changes that come later.

A Cautionary Tale For Builders, Buyers, And HOAs

Through her reporting, Cierra Putman shows just how quickly a “small” rule difference – a few feet of setback – can snowball into a legal and financial catastrophe.

For builders, the message is loud and clear: you can’t treat HOA rules as optional, especially once concerns are raised and a judge warns you about the risks.

Continuing to build in defiance of that is not just bold; it can be ruinously expensive.

For homeowners and buyers, this case is a reminder that due diligence isn’t just about getting an inspection and signing a mortgage.

It may also mean asking tough questions about permits, HOA approvals, and any pending disputes before you move into that dream house.

And for HOAs, the ruling sends a double-edged signal.

On one hand, Judge Najjar’s decision validates their power to enforce the rules they’ve adopted.

On the other, it also shows how far those rules can go – all the way to the wrecking ball, even with innocent families living inside.

In the end, WatersEdge now has more than a setback fight on its hands.

It has become a high-profile example of what happens when private rules, public law, and millions of dollars of concrete and lumber collide – and no one blinks until the judge has the final word.