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

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. 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!

  2. 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.

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

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT