No ‘clean hands’ in dispute over muscle car work, COA finds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute over work done on a 1973 Dodge Challenger led the Indiana Court of Appeals Monday to find the car’s owner may challenge a mechanic’s lien that a shop used to auction the car.

The 31-page opinion in Terry Banks v. Denny Jamison, d/b/a, Automotive Hammerart, 49A02-1304-PL-362, found vehicle owners have a right to challenge a mechanic’s liens when disputes arise about the work performed. The appeal attracted an amicus brief from the Automobile Dealers Association of Indiana, which argued in favor of affirming summary judgment for Denny Jamison.

Banks took the car to Jamison’s shop, but he claims Jamison did far more work than authorized, and Banks disputed a bill that exceeded $5,000. Jamison claims the work was authorized and that Banks did not contest a possessory mechanic’s lien he perfected or attempt to halt an auction of the car for which he was served notice.

The Court of Appeals panel majority affirmed summary judgment in favor of Jamison on Banks’ civil claims of theft and conversion, but it ruled that Banks may proceed with a claim in Marion Superior Court under the Deceptive Consumers Sales Act.

The majority rejected Jamison’s claim that Banks was estopped from arguing the unauthorized work was done after the mechanic’s lien was perfected. The panel also concluded the lien was invalid because there was no indication Banks was served.

"The possessory mechanic’s lien statute provides some guidance to a lien holder about the procedure for perfecting and foreclosing on a mechanic’s lien. While the statute provides that a vehicle 'may be sold at public auction' if the vehicle owner 'does not claim the vehicle and satisfy the mechanic’s lien on the vehicle,' Ind. Code § 9-22-6-2(g), the statute is silent on how or when a person may challenge a possessory mechanic’s lien," Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Cale Bradford.

"As we hold below, once proper service of the lien notice is obtained, unless and until the General Assembly provides for an adequate forum for the resolution of conflicting claims, the owner will have an adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the lien, either through a replevin action or, once notified of the claimed lien, through a declaratory judgment action."
The ADAI in its amicus brief argued that to “permit Banks to challenge the validity of the mechanic’s lien after it has been foreclosed, and all statutory foreclosure procedures have been completed, would render the mechanic’s lien statute worse than useless.”

Mathias wrote that neither party came to the appeal with “clean hands.”

“Jamison could have offered, and Banks could have demanded, a written and signed estimate of the work to be performed that included Banks’s contact information. That single, simple step would have allowed both parties to avoid the expensive legal journey that has brought them before this court,” Mathias wrote.

The majority found that despite highly disputed facts in this case, the record shows Jamison didn’t act in bad faith. But Judge Rudolph R. Pyle III was unconvinced. He wrote that he concurred with most of the majority’s ruling but would also reverse summary judgment to allow Banks’ civil theft and conversion claims to proceed.

“This case is ripe for trial. The facts are so highly disputed that a jury is required to observe the facial expressions of the parties, listen to the tenor of their voices, and make a decision regarding their credibility. I believe Banks is being denied his day in court,” Pyle wrote.




Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?