ILNews

Judges reverse ruling mechanic's lien has priority over mortgages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled there was no reason for a trial judge to disregard the state’s priority statutes regarding liens and mortgages and find that a construction company’s mechanic’s lien has priority over previously recorded mortgages.

Eby Construction filed suit to try to collect on a debt for work done on real estate owned by a trust. The loans for the construction came from LaPorte Savings Bank, which were secured by mortgages on the real estate prior to Eby beginning work. Eby and two other contractors had asserted mechanic’s liens, which were consolidated into one action. The trust used proceeds from its third loan with the bank to pay its debt to a third contractor.

The trial court originally entered a decree of foreclosure in favor of LaPorte Savings Bank, but after Eby filed an amended complaint, it granted partial summary judgment to Eby. The trial court concluded that although statute and caselaw clearly provides the bank’s mortgage liens should have priority, public policy dictates that Eby’s lien be given priority in this case. The judge also found the bank came to court with “unclean hands” because the trust had used proceeds from a bank loan to pay a third contractor before paying second contractor Eby.

On interlocutory appeal, the COA concluded this was an error by the judge. Citing Harold McComb & Son v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 892 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and Indiana Code 32-28-3-5(d), the judges held that LaPorte Savings Bank’s mortgages should have priority over Eby’s mechanic’s lien as the mortgage was recorded first.

The judges also disagreed that the bank came to court with unclean hands. While they don’t condone the decision to pay a subsequent contractor when the trust hadn’t yet paid Eby, that decision isn’t an act of unclean hands on the part of the bank, as it did not and was not under any obligation to control the trust’s decision, wrote Judge Terry Crone in City Savings Bank n/k/a LaPorte Savings Bank v. Eby Construction, LLC, No. 64A03-1012-MF-611.

The trial court attempted to use its equitable powers to achieve what it thought was a more fair and balanced result, but it failed to appreciate the importance of the doctrine “equity follows the law”, the judge continued.

“Because there is nothing in the designated evidentiary material to indicate that substantial justice cannot be accomplished by following the law, and the parties’ actions are clearly governed by our priority statutes, equity must follow the law,” he wrote.

The judges remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT