Fred C. Feitler, Mary Anna Feitler, and The Feitler Family Trust v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc., J. Laurie Commercial Floors, LLC, d/b/a Jack Lauries Floor Designs, and JM Woodworking Company

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 23, 2013
• Docket: 17A04-1206-PL-297
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Jan 23 2013, 9:28 am

FOR PUBLICATION CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC.: JAMES O. WAANDERS Indianapolis, Indiana STEPHEN J. HARANTS Miller & Harants DONALD J. STUCKEY New Haven, Indiana Auburn, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE J. LAURIE COMMERCIAL FLOORS, LLC:

JEREMY J. GROGG Burt, Blee, Dixon, Sutton & Bloom, LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana

EDMUND P. KOS Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE JM WOODWORKING COMPANY:

W. ERIK WEBER Mefford, Weber and Blythe, PC Auburn, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

FRED C. FEITLER, MARY ANNA FEITLER, ) and THE FEITLER FAMILY TRUST, ) ) Appellants/Defendants/Counterclaim ) Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants, ) ) vs. ) No. 17A04-1206-PL-297 ) SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC., ) ) Appellee/Plaintiff/Counterclaim ) Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant, ) ) J. LAURIE COMMERCIAL FLOORS, LLC, ) d/b/a JACK LAURIES FLOOR DESIGNS, ) ) Appellee/Counterclaim Plaintiff/ ) Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Third-Party ) Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant, ) ) and ) ) JM WOODWORKING COMPANY, ) ) Appellee/Third-Party Defendant/ ) Cross-Claim Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE DeKALB SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kevin P. Wallace, Judge Cause No. 17D01-1003-PL-10

January 23, 2013

OPINION ON REHEARING - FOR PUBLICATION

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

2 someone “other than the owner or the owner’s legal representatives[.]” Indiana Code § 32-

28-3-1(i). 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 petition in full and

reaffirm our original opinion in all other respects.

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