Feitler v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Feitler v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc.

981 N.E.2d 155, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 25, 2013 WL 244655

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 23, 2013

DocketNo. 17A04-1206-PL-297

StatusPublished

This text of 981 N.E.2d 155 (Feitler v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feitler v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc., 981 N.E.2d 155, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 25, 2013 WL 244655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

BRADFORD, Judge.

In our original opinion in this case, we concluded, inter alia, that the trial court erred in concluding that Appellee JM Woodworking could hold a mechanic’s lien against the property of Appellants. JM failed to issue a pre-lien notice, which we concluded it was required to do if it wished to hold a mechanic’s lien. JM now seeks rehearing, and we grant for the limited purpose of revising our previous disposition of this question. JM contends, and Appellants concede, that a pre-lien notice is required only if work is provided to someone “other than the owner or the owner’s legal representatives!)]” Indiana Code § 32-28-3-1®. Having already concluded that the undisputed designated evidence established that JM entered into a separate agreement with the Feitlers and that the Feitlers are “owners” within the meaning of the mechanic’s lien statute, we now conclude that JM was not required to issue a pre-lien notice in order to hold a mechanic’s lien, and therefore now affirm the trial court on this point. That said, we also deny Appellee J. Laurie’s rehearing [156]*156petition in full and reaffirm our original opinion in all other respects.

ROBB, C.J., and BAKER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REHEARING

BRADFORD, Judge.

In our original opinion in this case, we concluded, inter alia, that the trial court erred in concluding that Appellee JM Woodworking could hold a mechanic’s lien against the property of Appellants. JM failed to issue a pre-lien notice, which we concluded it was required to do if it wished to hold a mechanic’s lien. JM now seeks rehearing, and we grant for the limited purpose of revising our previous disposition of this question. JM contends, and Appellants concede, that a pre-lien notice is required only if work is provided to someone “other than the owner or the owner’s legal representatives!)]” Indiana Code § 32-28-3-1®. Having already concluded that the undisputed designated evidence established that JM entered into a separate agreement with the Feitlers and that the Feitlers are “owners” within the meaning of the mechanic’s lien statute, we now conclude that JM was not required to issue a pre-lien notice in order to hold a mechanic’s lien, and therefore now affirm the trial court on this point. That said, we also deny Appellee J. Laurie’s rehearing [156]*156petition in full and reaffirm our original opinion in all other respects.

ROBB, C.J., and BAKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

981 N.E.2d 155, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 25, 2013 WL 244655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feitler-v-springfield-enterprises-inc-indctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack