Court Opinion

ID: 9730716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:21:36.60315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.853508
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Sullivan, J.
I dissent from the opinion delivered in this cause by the majority.. My areas of disagreement are three*576fold, only one of which materially affects the result I believe required in the matter. In the interest of clarity and in order that my position be not misleading I consider it appropriate to comment on the other two issues, however.
Contrary to the provision of Art. 7, § 5, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which by virtue of Hunter v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. (1930), 202 Ind. 328, 174 N. E. 287, is made applicable to the opinions of the Appellate Court, the majority opinion herein does not address itself to one procedural contention made by appellant and properly before this court as a matter of record. The trial court below quite clearly failed to set forth in its findings that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. I would, therefore, agree with appellant that on its face the trial court’s finding and judgment does not conform to the dictates of Harris v. Young Women’s Christian Association (1968), 250 Ind. 491, 237 N. E. 2d 242, nor to the holding of this court in Singh v. Interstate Finance of Indiana No. 2, Inc. (1969), 144 Ind. App. 444, 246 N. E. 2d 776, I would not, however, require remand of the cause on this narrow basis. As recently stated in Ware v. Waterman (1969), 146 Ind. App. 237, 253 N. E. 2d 708 at 709 (Footnote 1), such remand for the sole purpose of permitting the trial judge to incorporate the words of art into his finding would unduly prolong the proceedings. I, therefore, prefer to address my dissent to the merits as treated or omitted by the majority opinion.
Although not bearing directly upon the result I would reach upon the merits, I am totally unable to understand what appears to me to be a self-defeating holding by the majority. My colleagues have at several points in their discourse categorized appellee’s remedy and recovery as foreclosure of a lien. They quite clearly state that the proceeding below was not “an attempt to enforce personal liability against the owner under Burns’ § 43-709.” In that regard, nothing save the naked and unsupported conclusion of the majority appears in the opinion. Yet, the entire substance *577of . that opinion is devoted to a consideration and interpretation of the very statutory provision deemed inapplicable as well as to certain case decisions, particularly, Nash Engineering Co. v. Marcy Realty Corp. (1944), 222 Ind. 396, 54 N. E. 2d 263, which construe that provision.
If, in fact, the holding of the majority is that appellee was attempting to assert lien rights under the Mechanics’ Lien Law, such holding necessarily renders the result reached by the majority totally erroneous. The very rigid procedural requirements for perfection of a mechanic’s lien were not here followed. Section 3 of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, being Ch. 116 of the Acts of 1909, as amended and found in Ind. Anno. Stat. §43-703 (Burns’ 1969 Supp.), provides, in part, that:
“Any person who wishes to acquire a lien upon any property1 * * * shall file in the recorder’s office of the county, at any time within sixty [60] days after * * * furnishing such materials * * * a sworn statement in duplicate of his intention to hold a lien upon such property for the amount of his claim * *
It is clear from the record, the briefs and the argument of counsel in this cause that no notice was filed by appellee herein pursuant to the above-quoted section. If, therefore, as stated by the majority, appellee was attempting to assert lien rights, appellee must fail here.
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned inconsistency of the majority position here it is quite clearly the law of Indiana that the provisions of Acts of 1909, ch. 116, § 8, as found in Ind. Anno. Stat. §43-709 (Burns’ 1965 Repl.), do not confer lien rights. The very cases cited by appellee as authority for its position and relied upon by the majority of this court to support the result reached controvert those respective positions. The remedy and rights conferred by *578Burns’' § 43-709, are alternative and in addition to the lien rights conferred by the other sections of the same act. The principal case relied upon by both the appellee and by the court, Nash Engineering Co. v. Marcy Realty Corp., supra, quotes from two earlier cases acknowledging this distinction. In Colter v. Frese (1873), 45 Ind. 96, the court said at page 99:
“Section 649 [the predecessor to Burns’ § 43-709] provides for a personal liability of the owner of a building in favor of any sub-contract, journeyman, or laborer employed in the construction or repair, or furnishing materials for any building, not to exceed, however, the amount due, or that may become due, from the owner to the employer.
“This section is confined to the subject of personal liability, and has no relation to hat ever to liens on property." (Emphasis supplied)
The same court said further at page 104:
“The contractor has the right to a lien and also to his personal action against the owner. The object of the law was to place the sub-contractor, journeyman, laborer, and material-man upon the same footing with the contractor, except that the personal action against the owner in favor of the subcontractor, etc., is limited by the amount that may be due or may become due from the owner to the employer. The lien given might be an inadequate remedy, as the property might be previously encumbered to an extent that would render the lien unavailable; hence the right of a personal action against the owner is conferred to the extent indicated.”
Quoting from Crawford v. Crockett (1876), 55 Ind. 220, at 224, the case of Nash Engineering Co. v. Marcy Realty Corp., supra, stated at p. 407:
“ * * Thus it is seen that materialmen, etc., may acquire a lien upon the property to the extent of the value of the materials furnished, or they may hold the owner of the building personally liable, not exceeding the amount that may be due, or may become due, from him to the contractor. They may do one or the other, or both.’ ” (Emphasis supplied)
*579In Halstead v. Dean & Co. (1914), 182 Ind. 446, 452, 105 N. E. 903, our Supreme Court in construing the “owner’s personal liability” section cited the Colter case, supra, and said:
“It will be observed that the act of 1909, as above quoted, provides that notice must be given to the owner of an intention to hold him responsible for the claim in question and that such responsibility extends no further than to such funds as are then due the employer or may thereafter become due, from the owner. The remedy thus given need work no hardship on the owner and is designed only as an additional protection to those who, under other provisions of the law, are entitled to have a lien on the property in question. * * *” (Emphasis supplied)
In O’Halloran v. Leachey (1872), 39 Ind. 150, 152, the court pointed out that the remedy provided by § 649 is purely personal while that provided by § 650 is in rem. The court further stated at page 152:
“* * * The one makes the owner personally responsible, while the other creates a lien upon the ground and building * * *”
An earlier case, Barker v. Buell (1871), 35 Ind. 297, cited by appellee and extensively quoted in its brief is of particular interest. The court held there at page 302:
“We are of the opinion that section 649 has no reference whatever to the subject of liens. It does not determine by whom, or under what circumstances, a lien may be acquired, or what steps shall be taken to acquire it. It simply provides for fixing a personal liability upon the owner of a building under certain circumstances, and to a certain extent, and for enforcing the same by action. There is no allusion in the section to the subject of liens, but, on the contrary, its entire scope and effect, letter and spirit, are confined to personal liabilities, and the mode of fixing and enforcing them by action. It will be seen that the personal liability that can be fixed upon the owner of a building is less extensive than the lien that can be acquired against the property. The personal liability is limited to the amount that may be due, or may become due from the owner to *580the employer. Moreover, a party, in order to enforce his lien, must file his complaint therefor within one year2 from the completion of the work, or the furnishing of materials, or, where a credit is given, from the expiration of the credit (sec. 651), while there is no such limitation to the personal action provided for by section 649.
“Inasmuch as section 649 has no application whatever to liens, either in respect to the circumstances under which they may be acquired, or to the manner in which they may be acquired or enforced, it follows that the notice therein provided for to the owner of property, in order to fix a personal liability upon him, is not necessary in order to acquire a lien. Section 650 provides for the notice to be given in order to acquire a lien, and none other is required for that purpose.”
The unbroken line of authority in Indiana concerning this particular issue of statutory interpretation is as herebeforé set forth. It is, I think, quite undeniably contra to the unsupported, unsupportable, and improvident conclusion of the majority.
The principal source of my inability to concur in the result reached by the majority is, however, even more basic and in my estimation more glaring than those heretofore discussed.
Convenient to its result, the majority opinion does not set forth that portion of the statute in question (Burns’ § 43-709), which I deem to be dispositive of the entire appeal. The portions of the statute I deem pertinent are inclusive of a provision set out below with emphasis, which provision was omitted entirely by the majority’s treatment. Those portions are as follows:
“Any subcontractor * * * employed * * * in furnishing any material * * * [for a building under construction] may give to the owner thereof * * * notice in writing particularly setting forth the amount of his claim and services rendered, for which his employer is indebted to him, and that he holds the owner responsible for the same; and the owner shall be liable for such claim, but not to *581exceed the amount which may be due, and may thereafter become due, from him to the employer * * *” (Emphasis supplied)
The statute is not .complicated. It fixes the personal liability of an owner of real estate basically as set forth in the majority opinion. The statute, however, restricts that liability to an amount “not to exceed the amount which may be due * * * from him [the owner] to the employer.”
The majority opinion cites the Nash case, supra, quite correctly, I think, for the proposition that the word “employer” as used in the statutory phrase “for which his employer is indebted to him” means the employer of the supplier of the material for which claim is made — in this case, Charles McGarvey Co., Inc., the plastering subcontractor. Quite logically, appellee relies on the Nash case to this effect for the simple reason that the success of its lawsuit depends, at least in part, upon proof that McGarvey, plaintiff’s employer, owed the plaintiff for the materials supplied.
I would not for a moment dispute that the facts of the Nash case are virtually identical to that of the case before us and that the Nash case reached the same result obtained by the majority here. I further agree that the statute construed in the Nash case is the same statute governing our case. The Nash case, however, did not, even by inference, consider the restriction of an owner’s liability to such sums as he, the owner, might owe to the employer of the material-man. I therefore cannot see how the Nash opinion can be considered as authority contrary to my views in this regard.3
*582It seems very clear to me that neither the appellee nor this court is empowered to redefine the word “employer” as it sees fit. If McGarvey is the “employer” within the meaning of that word as first used in the statute, McGarvey must necessarily be considered to be the “employer” within the meaning of the word as later used in the same statutory section. I am compelled, therefore, to the obvious conclusion, in agreement with appellant, that since IPALCO, the owner, owed nothing to the “employer” McGarvey, Southeastern Supply cannot recover from IPALCO upon the basis of Burns’ § 43-709.* **4
*583To paraphrase Lord Acton, there is no error so glaring or so apparent that it will not have defenders among the ablest of men. I regretably but firmly believe that such is the case here and that my three colleagues have wholly misconceived the nature and theory of the action below and have totally blinded themselves to the essence of the appeal before us. Also regretably, however, their three voices constitute the voice of this court. I am able, therefore, but to dissent.
I would reverse.
Note. — Reported in 257 N. E. 2d 722.

. I fail anywhere in the Mechanics’ Lien Law to detect any language that would indicate a legislative intent to afford a lien against property other than real estate with the exception of one provision (Burns’ § 43-712) which concerns liens against railroad rights-of-way and franchises.

. The Acts of 1909, as hereinbefore noted, changed the period within which such notice of lien must be filed from one year to sixty days.

. It should be noted that each of the eight cases cited and relied upon by the opinion in the Nash case, supra, of necessity involved the same “employer.” The relationship of the parties in those cases is best explained by the following diagram:
Owner-Defendant
V
Contractor-Employer
V
Materialman-Plaintiff, *582as opposed to the following diagram which represents the relationship of the parties in the Nash case as well as in the instant ease:
Owner-Defendant
Y
Contractor
V
Subcontractor-Employer

If

Materialman-Plaintiff.
It is thus apparent to me that the Nash case too narrowly treated the fact situation there involved and dealt solely with the quesion whether a materialman as opposed to a contractor or subcontractor could avail himself of the provisions of Burns’ § 43-709. The Nash case improperly did not consider the further requirements of that very statute insofar as the limitation of the liability of an owner was concerned. The majority here has compounded the error of omission contained in the Nash decision.

. It should be noted that a curious inconsistency exists between the theory, allegations and proof necessarily accepted as true in this cause and the undisputed facts present in the case of The Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. State of Indiana for the Benefit of Southeastern Supply Co., Inc., decided by the Second Division in Appellate Cause No. 469 A 67 (decided March 24, 1970), 146 Ind. App. 431, 256 N. E. 2d 398. The latter case involved a claim and recovery by plaintiff Southeastern against Western Casualty as surety upon a bond executed by George Bahre Co., the general contractor for Indianapolis Power and Light Co. Said transaction was apparently a part of the self-same construction project as involved in the appeal decided by us here. The claim and the judgment for the benefit of Southeastern in both cases was identical as to the principal amount. The inconsistency exists, however, in the fact that Southeastern’s success in the case before us necessarily depended upon notice to IPALCO of a claim by Southeastern while there was due or to become due monies from IPALCO to the “employer.” On the other hand, in the Western Casualty & Surety Co. case, it was undisputed that Southeastern was not paid for materials supplied to McGarvey although the owner IPALCO paid Bahre the general contractor in full before owner had any knowledge of Southeastern’s materialman’s claim.