ILNews

COA finds mechanic's lien statute requires only substantial compliance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

The Michigan City attorney representing a homeowner in a dispute over a mechanic’s lien has filed a petition for rehearing, arguing the Indiana Court of Appeals’ interpretation that “close enough is good enough” does not apply when two separate companies with similar names file lien notices on the same property.

John Lake, attorney for Margaret Lynn West, wants the Court of Appeals to take another look at Von Tobel Corporation, Individually and d/b/a/ Von Tobel Lumber & Hardware; and Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center, Inc. v. Chi-Tec Construction & Remodeling, Inc., John F. Ziola, Jr., and Margaret Lynn West, as Trustee for the Margaret Lynn West Trust, 46A03-1301-MI-18.

lake-michigan-house-front-15col.jpg The owner of this home built on Lake Michigan, Margaret Lynn West, is battling a mechanic’s lien filed by a construction supplier, arguing the lien is invalid. (Submitted photo)

The particular issues raised in this case, Lake said, have never before been presented. Similar cases have been heard, but not one where a corporation that filed for the mechanic’s lien was different from the corporation that filed for the pre-lien.

However, construction law attorneys say the court reached the proper conclusion.

“Our courts have a long history of not construing the state’s mechanic’s lien statute in a hyper-technical manner,” said Brian Falcon, attorney at Frost Brown Todd LLC in Indianapolis. “As long as the homeowner is not unfairly prejudiced by an error, the court is not going to take form over substance.”

lake Lake

West had contracted with Chi-Tec Construction to build a house on property owned by the Margaret Lynn West Trust and fronting Lake Michigan. The contractor then turned to Von Tobel Corp. for building supplies and materials to be used in the construction of the house.

On Jan. 17, 2007, Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center issued a pre-lien notice that was sent to West, according to a brief filed with the Court of Appeals by Von Tobel Corp.’s attorney. She then issued payments directly to Chi-Tec to satisfy the bills for the supplies.

When Von Tobel Corp. did not receive the funds for the materials and supplies delivered to the West property, Von Tobel Corp. filed the mechanic’s lien against the property.

Lake contended Von Tobel Home Center is a distinct and separate entity from Von Tobel Corp. The mechanic’s lien is therefore invalid, he argued, because Von Tobel Corp. did not file for the pre-lien notice so it could not acquire the mechanic’s lien.

“Von Tobel seeks to have its corporate form disregarded to overcome its failure to strictly comply with the requirement to provide pre-lien notice,” Lake wrote in his appellate brief. “The Court should deny Von Tobel’s request. If the Court does not allow Von Tobel to disregard the corporate form, then Home Center’s pre-lien notice cannot satisfy the condition precedent to the right of acquiring a lien for Von Tobel, as Von Tobel and Home Center remain separate and distinct entities.”

Tim Krsak, attorney at Douglas Koeppen & Hurley in Valparaiso, said his client, Von Tobel Corp., includes the Lumber & Home Center and is a single entity. Therefore, Von Tobel substantially complied with the statute governing mechanic’s liens.

The pre-lien provision in statute does not specifically delineate that the claimant be named, Krsak said. When the mechanic’s lien is filed, the claimant has to be identified as required by state law and as was done in this instance.

leone Leone

Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center’s pre-lien notice fulfilled the purpose of the law by giving notice to the property owner, Krsak said. The idea behind the statute is to inform the owner that the contractor is using a subcontractor who could file a lien if full payment is not made.

Joe Leone, partner at Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP, made that same point. The purpose of the pre-lien notice is to let the homeowner know subcontractors and suppliers hired by the contractor could file liens if they are not paid. Then the homeowner should take steps to make sure the contractor is paying all the subcontractors and suppliers.

Drewry Simmons Vornehm and Frost Brown Todd are not representing any party in the Von Tobel case.

In this instance, Leone said, the homeowner knew “somebody named Von Tobel” had to be compensated for building supplies and materials.

The LaPorte Superior Court issued a summary judgment for West. The court agreed with Lake that Von Tobel Corp. was a separate company and had failed to file a pre-lien notice.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Von Tobel Corp. Citing Beneficial Financial Co. v. Wegmiller Bender Lumber Co., Inc., 402 N.E.2d 41, 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980), the court stated it had previously rejected the idea that the mechanic’s lien statute must be “strictly construed with such hypertechnicality so as to frustrate the remedial purpose of the legislation.”

In finding the non-compliance with the statute was minimal in this case, the Court of Appeals noted the Margaret Lynn West Trust did not contend it was misled or confused by the differing names on the pre-lien and mechanic’s lien notices.

Very broadly, Leone said, the central issue in this case is how the statute should be interpreted. Here, the COA said the proper standard is substantial compliance, not strict compliance.

If the trial court’s ruling had been affirmed, compliance would have been difficult, Leone said. Then the name on the pre-lien would have to exactly match the name on the mechanic’s lien for the claimant to get the rights.

Lake said he did not expect a reversal and now believes the factual issues involved in the dispute created some confusion for the Court of Appeals. Since Von Tobel Corp. and Home Center are separate entities, Home Center could not transfer its pre-lien notice to Von Tobel Corp. because it had not been perfected by Home Center.

If the petition for rehearing is denied, Lake said he will file for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.

For West, “it’s a nightmare,” Lake said. She will likely lose her house if the rehearing and transfer are denied. “The client didn’t do anything wrong. It was the contractor.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT