ILNews

COA: Mortgage lien holder has priority

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined today that two contractors with mechanic's liens did not have priority over the mortgage lien held by the bank in a foreclosure action, discussing a law in a ruling for only the second time since it was enacted in 1999.

At issue in Harold McComb & Son, Inc. and American Renovations of Indiana, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 02A04-0802-CV-60, is whether Harold McComb & Son and American Renovations of Indiana, who held mechanic's liens on work they did as general contractors on a property JPMorgan Chase foreclosed on, should have priority over Chase's mortgage lien.

In a consolidated action, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to Chase, finding Harold McComb had no legal standing to challenge Chase's foreclosure action because it wasn't party to the construction loan agreement or the note between Chase and the commercial property owner.

But the general contractors believed the trial court erred in its prioritizing of the liens of the parties, granting Chase priority over the mechanic's liens.

The Court of Appeals examined Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-5(d), which the General Assembly passed in 1999 to fill a statutory gap identified by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1910 regarding mechanic's liens. The appellate court looked to Judge John Sharpnack's dissent in Provident Bank v. Tri-County Southside Asphalt, Inc., 804 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) - which is the only other time the Court of Appeals has discussed that section of Indiana Code - and determined the judge's discussion of the section was correct, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

Because the statutes in existence when Ward v. Yarnelle, 173 Ind. 535, 91 N.E. 7 (1910), was decided didn't address the lien priority between a mortgage executed to raise funds for construction of improvements on a property and the mechanic's liens of those who provided the labor and supplies, the General Assembly adopted Section (d) to say that when the funds from the loan secured by the mortgage are for the project that gave rise to the mechanic's lien, then the mortgage lien has priority over the mechanic's liens recorded after the mortgage, wrote Judge Riley citing Judge Sharpnack's dissent.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT