ILNews

Decomposition cleanup subject to lien law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A decomposing body left in a Johnson County home has led the Indiana Court of Appeals to analyze the state mechanic's lien statute.

In a decision today in Midwest Biohazard Services LLC v. Hugh H. Rodgers and The Hugh C. Rodgers Trust, No. 41A05-0805-CV-290, a three-judge panel unanimously held that the lien statute's use of the word "repairs" should encompass work done by a biohazard cleanup company in 2007.

The elder Rodgers died sometime in 2007 at his Johnson County home, but his body wasn't discovered for several days. The decomposition resulted in fluids seeping from the body and into the carpet, subflooring, into the basement, and causing contaminants to be absorbed throughout the house. His son, Hugh Rodgers, contacted Midwest Biohazard and in September 2007 arranged a $13,500 contract to remove and dispose of the biohazard resulting from the decomposed body. Within a month, Rodgers notified the company he didn't intend to pay more than a deposit; the company eventually sued to foreclose on a mechanic's lien. The trial court dismissed Biohazard's claim to foreclose on the lien in April 2008.

On appeal, Biohazard argued that the trial court erred because the services it provided fell within the scope of the mechanic's lien statute as "repairs." Rodgers responded by arguing those services were merely cleaning services and the statute shouldn't apply.

"The word 'repair' has not been defined in the mechanic's lien statute," the Court of Appeals wrote, turning to dictionary definitions and noting that one definition is that the word means to "restore to a sound healthy state."

"The decontamination of the house performed by Biohazard clearly meets this latter definition of 'repair,' and we see no reason why the plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of repair would exclude restoring property 'to a sound healthy state,' as well as restoring by 'replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken.'"

Looking at the purpose of the mechanic's lien statute, the court cited Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Indianapolis, New Castle & Toledo Railway Co., 101 N.E. 296, 302 (1913), in which Indiana's justices held the law focused largely on whether the activities performed would increase a property's value.

"It takes no stretch of the imagination to recognize that a buyer would be willing to pay more for a house that was free from biohazard contaminants than she would be willing to pay for the same house in a contaminated state," Judge Patricia Riley wrote. "As such, the services allegedly performed ... undoubtedly increased the value of the house."

The court ruled the trial court erred in dismissing the claim and that an error existed in transferring venue from Johnson County to Jackson County, where the younger Rodgers lived and maintained the father's trust. The case has been reversed and remanded to Johnson Superior Judge Kim Van Valer.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT