« Ind. Decisions - Two interesting 7th Circuit opinions today, neither involving Indiana cases | Main | Ind. Courts - "Longtime Porter County chief public defender James Tsoutsouris dies" »

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Capital Drywall Supply, Inc. and Old Fort Building Supply Co., Inc. v. Jai Jagdish, Inc. and Ranjan Amin, an 18-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Capital Drywall Supply, Inc. (“Capital Drywall”) and Old Fort Building Supply Company, Inc. (“Old Fort”) appeal the trial court's order, following a hearing, that granted the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Jai Jagdish, Inc. (“JJI”) and Ranjan Amin (“Amin”) on Capital Drywall's and Old Fort's cross-claims to foreclose on mechanic's liens. We consider the following issues for review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the admissibility of the Affidavit of Pamela Hartman, which was designated by Old Fort in response to JJI and Amin's cross-motion for summary judgment.
2. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Capital Drywall's and Old Fort's motions for summary judgment and granted JJI and Amin's cross-motion for summary judgment.
We hold that any error in the trial court's ruling that limited the admissibility of the Hartman Affidavit was harmless because the lien claimants did not comply or substantially comply with the mechanic's lien statute. We also hold that the lien claimants did not perfect their liens because they both used an incorrect owner's name in their notices of intent to hold a mechanic's lien. And we hold that the lien claimants did not substantially comply with the mechanic's lien statute when they listed an incorrect owner's name in their lien notices, even if such information was obtained by telephone from the public office designated by statute. We affirm. * * *

MATHIAS, J., concurs.
BAKER, C.J., concurs in result with separate opinion. [that concludes] The majority concludes that because a lien notice must be premised upon an affidavit made upon the personal knowledge of the affiant, it is improper for a claimant to rely upon information gleaned from a telephone conversation with an employee of the county auditor‟s office. I do not think this analysis is necessary because the relevant portion of the statute requires that the lien notice describe the name of the owner as set forth in the latest entry in the transfer books. This language implies that the claimant must review the transfer books in person rather than rely upon information provided by an employee of the auditor‟s office. I believe this to be a Draconian requirement and suspect that it was not what the General Assembly intended in drafting this statute. That said, the language of the statute is plain and must be strictly construed. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (7):

Gregory A. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Phillip Lawton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael O. Branch v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Terry R. Twitty, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Rudolph V. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lafayette Caldwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

David Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 29, 2010 01:17 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions