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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT