ILNews

Builder allowed to foreclose on lien

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a Lake Superior judge erred in denying a construction company’s request to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien after the client withheld a final payment, claiming faulty work.

Quadri Enterprises LLC, owned by Dr. Kamartaj Quadri, hired Ponziano Construction Services to build a medical office on the site of a pre-existing structure in Crown Point. The contract called for Quadri to pay Ponziano $144,900. After executing the contract, the two agreed to an addendum to make changes to the original plan that added $500 to the contract.

Quadri agreed to pay Ponziano through a construction loan from Wells Fargo. It made the first two payments, but withheld the last payment because of concerns over quality of workmanship, including poor painting and countertop installation. Ponziano then filed a mechanic’s lien for $45,549.43 and filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and sought to foreclose on the lien and attorney fees. Quadri filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, slander of title, and breach of implied warranty of good workmanship.

The trial court awarded Ponziano $16,000 and attorney fees of $8,000. Ponziano appealed, arguing it is still owed $53,783 absent reduction. Quadri sought to reduce the amount owed by claiming damages due to delays in construction and defective work. But Dr. Kamartaj Quadri caused many of the delays by moving into the office before construction was complete and through her failure to file plans and designs with the state and city, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote in Ponziano Construction Services, Inc. v. Quadri Enterprises, LLC, 45A05-1112-CC-661.

Quadri presented evidence that the cost of fixing the defective work was $4,800, so that’s the only amount the company is entitled to as a set-off. The appellate court found $48,983.43 to be the appropriate amount owed to Ponziano: the $145,400 contract price, less the $91,616.57 already paid, minus the set-off.

Because Quadri owes the builder $48,983.43, an amount in excess of the mechanic’s lien, Ponziano may foreclose on the entire amount of the lien, the judges held. They remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Ponziano for $48,483.43, order sale of the property subject to the $45,549.43 lien, and determine the existence, extent and outcome of a potential priority dispute between Ponziano and Wells Fargo.

The appellate court upheld the $8,000 in attorney fees, finding that Ponziano is only entitled to recover the fees relating to its action to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien.

 

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. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT