`

Judges rule on rehearing that company can hold mechanic’s lien

January 23, 2013

JM Woodworking petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing after the court decided in November 2012 that the company could not hold a mechanic’s lien against property of Fred and Mary Anna Feitler for unpaid bills on the construction of their home.

The judges reversed their original decision, in which they held subcontractors JM and J. Laurie Commercial Floors LLC could not hold mechanic’s liens against the Feitlers’ property. The Feitlers argued that JM’s failure to file a pre-lien notice prevented it from being able to hold a mechanic’s lien.

 Judge Cale Bradford, writing for the court in Fred C. Feitler, Mary Anna Feitler, and The Feitler Family Trust v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc., J. Laurie Commercial Floors, LLC, d/b/a Jack Lauries Floor Designs, and JM Woodworking Company, 17A04-1206-PL-297, noted that a pre-lien notice is required only if work is provided to someone “other than the owner or owner’s legal representatives.” The evidence showed that JM did enter into a separate agreement with the Feitlers and they are the “owners” within the meaning of the mechanic’s lien statute, so JM wasn’t required to issue a pre-lien notice.

The judges affirmed the trial court on this point and also denied J. Laurie’s rehearing petition in full and reaffirmed their original opinion in all other respects.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Recent Articles by Jennifer Nelson