« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues opinion on double jeopardy issue | Main | Ind. Law - Still more on: Indiana building codes, part of the Indiana Administrative Code, are not available online [Corrected] »

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 6 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Harold McComb & Son, Inc. and American Renovation of IN, Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank , a 17-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

Appellants-Mechanic’s Lienholders, Harold McComb & Son, Inc. (McComb) and American Renovations of Indiana, Inc. (ARI) (collectively, Lienholders), appeal the trial court’s grant of Appellee-Mortgagee’s, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase), motion for partial summary judgment in these consolidated actions against Indian Village Apartments, LLC (Indian Village) for foreclosure of the Lienholders’ mechanic’s liens and Chase’s mortgage. We affirm.

The Lienholders present two issues for our review, which we restate as: (1) Whether the Lienholders have standing to challenge Chase’s foreclosure action against Indian Village; and (2) Whether the trial court properly prioritized the liens of the respective parties. * * *

In Gonzales v. Kil Nam Chun, 465 N.E.2d 727, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), the case relied upon by the trial court, we held that only the parties to a contract, those in privity with the parties, and intended third-party beneficiaries under the contract may seek to enforce the contract. McComb does not contend that it falls into any of these three categories with regard to the Construction Loan Agreement and the Note between Chase and Indian Village. As such, the trial court did not err in determining that McComb lacked standing to challenge Chase’s foreclosure action.

Next, the Lienholders argue that even if the trial court properly concluded that they do not have standing to challenge the foreclosure proceeding, it erred in prioritizing the liens of the parties. They concede that Chase has priority with regard to the land and the buildings, but they contend that their mechanic’s liens have priority as to the improvements they provided. Resolution of this issue turns on the interplay between three statutes relating to the priority of liens: Indiana Code subsection 32-21-4-1(b), Indiana Code section 32-28-3-2, and Indiana Code subsection 32-28-3-5(d). * * *

[Lienholders] rely on their argument that Indiana Code section 32-28-3-2 constitutes an exception to Indiana Code subsection 32-28-3-5(d), a contention that, as discussed above, is not supported by the historical development and judicial interpretation of those statutes. Under these circumstances, the trial court was correct that Indiana Code subsection 32-28-3-5(d) controls and that Chase’s mortgages have priority over the mechanic’s liens. * * *

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that McComb lacks standing to challenge Chase’s mortgage foreclosure action or in prioritizing the respective liens. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of Chase’s motion for partial summary judgment. Affirmed.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Curtis Cross v. Bon L. Manufacturing Co. (NFP) - "The trial court did not err when it determined that Cross was a dual employee of GRUS and Bon L. Therefore, it properly granted Bon L’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

Tanisha R. Saunders v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dept. of Workforce Development and Logan Comm. Resources, Inc. (NFP) - "Tanisha R. Saunders (“Saunders”) appeals the Unemployment Insurance Review Board’s (“Review Board”) determination that she was not entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.Saunders raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the Review Board reasonably determined that Saunders resigned without good cause."

Tri-Quality Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Rhino Linings of Ft. Wayne v. Total Systems Technology, Inc. (NFP) - This is a 19-page, 2-1 opinion. "Tri-Quality Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Rhino Linings of Fort Wayne (“Rhino Linings”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Total Systems Technology, Inc. (“TST”), and its shareholders, Charles Piscatelli and Dorothy Piscatelli, on Rhino Linings’ third-party claims of breach of contract, common law indemnity, and fraud, as well as the trial court’s denial of Rhino Linings’ motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, Rhino Linings raises five issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly granted TST summary judgment on Rhino Linings’ claims of breach of contract, common law indemnity, and fraud. Concluding that the trial court properly granted TST summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, but not the common law indemnity and fraud claims, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand."

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Jason Widmeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

William Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

M.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions