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. 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