Case Name: Ronald JOHNSON, et al., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. William BLANKENSHIP and Sue Blankenship, Appellees (Plaintiff Below)
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1997-12-12
Citations: 688 N.E.2d 1250
Docket Number: No. 71S03-9712-CV-666
Parties: Ronald JOHNSON, et al., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. William BLANKENSHIP and Sue Blankenship, Appellees (Plaintiff Below).
Judges: DICKSON, SULLIVAN, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 688
Pages: 1250–1250

Head Matter:
Ronald JOHNSON, et al., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. William BLANKENSHIP and Sue Blankenship, Appellees (Plaintiff Below).
No. 71S03-9712-CV-666.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 12, 1997.
Donald E. Wertheimer, South Bend, for Appellant.
Stephen L. Eslinger, South Bend, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
A contractor filed a mechanic's lien for work undertaken on a commercial building and eventually sued to foreclose the lien. The owner of the building has contended that the notice was deficient under Ind.Code 32-8-3-3, which requires filing of a statement of "intention to hold a hen upon the property for the amount of the claim." The owner says this statute requires reference to the particular improvement that is subject to the hen.
The trial court entered judgment for the contractor, and the Court of Appeals held that the statute does not require reference to particular improvements. Johnson v. Blankenship, 679 N.E.2d 505 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). In doing so, it dechned to follow Cato v. David Excavating Co., 435 N.E.2d 597 (Ind.Ct.App.1982), which held that the statute implies that the henholder's notice must include a reference to the improvement subject to the hen.
We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly decided this case. We grant transfer and summarily affirm. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3). Cato is disapproved.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DICKSON, SULLIVAN, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur.