Judge Orders City To Settle With Donaghy

Judge Michael Keele, supervising judge of the environmental and community court for Marion County, today ordered the City of Indianapolis to carry out its settlement agreement with MeLyssa Donaghy, also known as Miss Ann, concerning the propriety of two businesses she operated according to a statement issued by Donaghy. Donaghy has maintained from the beginning that Mayor Peterson's administration targeted her businesses for zoning violations for political reasons when it brought suit to shut them down in December, 2005. She accused Mayor Peterson of lying in a press conference announcing the suit during which he accused her of operating an illegal adult business. Donaghy said The Reformatory was an art shop, and that the dominatrix services she offered in her home were strickly non-sexual.

According to Donaghy, the drawn out legal battle between her and the city was about to come to a close after city lawyers sent her attorney an agreement to dismiss the suit against her. Donaghy promptly signed the agreement, which her attorney, Mark Small, returned to city attorneys. Donaghy says she confronted the city's chief legal counsel, Kobi Wright, and mayoral spokesman Justin Ohlemiller at the tax forum hosted by the Light of the World Church on Sunday, August 26, 2007 about allegations IFD Fire Chief Jim Greeson had called her a dyke before the Mayor's budget presentation to the City-County Council last month. According to Donaghy, city attorney Teri Kendrick called her attorney the next day and told him the settlement agreement was being taken off the table, even though it had already been executed by Donaghy.

At today's hearing, Donaghy says Judge Keele ordered the city to sign the settlement agreement under Indiana Trial Rule 70. The rule reads, in part:

If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land, or other property or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party . . . The court may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt and may award damages for disobedience of the order . . .