Property MD's Home Improvement, LLC v. Anthony Grayson and Horizon Bank, N.A. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 25, 2020
• Docket: 19A-PL-1764
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 25 2020, 8:40 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Terry K. Hiestand Hiestand Law Office, LLC Chesterson, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Property MD’s Home February 25, 2020 Improvement, LLC, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 19A-PL-1764 Appeal from the Porter Superior v. Court The Honorable Jeffrey W. Clymer, Anthony Grayson, Judge Appellee-Defendant/Counterclaimant, Trial Court Cause No. 64D02-1509-PL-7829 and

Horizon Bank, N.A., Appellee-Defendant

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-1764 | February 25, 2020 Page 1 of 3 [1] Property MD’s Home Improvement, LLC (“Property MD”), contracted with

Anthony Grayson to perform some home repairs. Disputes arose, and Property

MD filed a complaint against Grayson and his lender, Horizon Bank, N.A.

(“Horizon”), to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien and for unjust enrichment.

Grayson filed a counterclaim alleging that Property MD had failed to comply

with the Indiana Home Improvement Act (“the Act”). Pursuant to a joint

stipulation, Horizon deposited $28,936 with the trial court clerk. After a bench

trial, the court issued an eight-page order ruling that Grayson owed Property

MD $13,297.62, to be paid from Horizon’s deposit, under an unjust enrichment

theory; that Property MD had violated the Act; that Property MD’s lien was

invalid; and that neither side was entitled to attorney’s fees. Property MD filed

a motion to correct error, which was denied.

[2] Property MD now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in calculating

damages and in failing to award it “the interest and attorney fees to which it

was clearly entitled as the holder of a valid Mechanic’s Lien.” Appellant’s Br.

at 10. Because Grayson did not submit an appellee’s brief, we may reverse the

trial court’s judgment if Property MD’s brief presents a case of prima facie

error. Blankenship v. Duke, 132 N.E.3d 410, 412-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). It

does not.1 Property MD cites no legal authority in its disjointed argument

1 Each of the paragraphs in Property MD’s statement of the case and inappropriately argumentative statement of facts is numbered, and most of them contain only one sentence, all of which makes for tedious reading. They are substantially similar to the proposed findings that Property MD submitted to the trial court, which serve a different purpose than an appellate brief.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-1764 | February 25, 2020 Page 2 of 3 regarding damages, which improperly second-guesses the trial court’s weighing

of evidence and assessment of witness credibility. See Keith v. State, 127 N.E.3d

1221, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“[I]t is an appellant’s burden to develop his

argument on the issues he presents and to support his argument with cogent

reasoning, legal authority, and citations to the record on appeal.”) (citing Ind.

Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)); Estate of Henry v. Woods, 77 N.E.3d 1200, 1204

(Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (“We do not reweigh the evidence nor do we assess

witness credibility.”). And Property MD’s argument regarding interest and

attorney’s fees wholly fails to establish that its lien was valid. 2 Accordingly, we

affirm.

[3] Affirmed.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

2 Property MD quotes from a statute and cites legal principles from several opinions but fails to actually apply any relevant law to the facts of this case.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-1764 | February 25, 2020 Page 3 of 3