Court Opinion

ID: 9529551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:51:57.290472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:50.557852
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, Judge,
dissenting.
The precise issue is whether a mechanic’s lien, to secure the joint debt of a husband and wife, can be valid where the statutory notice named only one spouse as the owner of property held by the husband and wife, as tenants by the entireties. I disagree with the holding that Wegmiller adequately complied with the statutory requirements IC 1976, 32-8-3-3 (West 1979). Therefore, I dissent and would hold that the trial court erred in finding the lien valid. The statute and facts are set forth in the majority opinion and will be incorporated only as required by this discussion.
The majority opinion summarizes three views on construction of mechanics’ lien statutes and adopts a substantial compliance construction.1 I believe strict compliance with the creation and perfection portions of the statute is required. Once the requirements of the statute are met, the remedies under the lien statutes naturally follow. This is consistent with the case law discussing compliance with the mechanics’ lien statutes in this state.
In Saint Joseph’s College v. Morrison’s Inc., (1973) 158 Ind.App. 272, 302 N.E.2d 865 at 869 the Court of Appeals recognized that the lien statutes were remedial in nature and are “liberally construed only insofar as determining the remedies available to one who has already satisfied the strict provisions of the law.” (Our emphasis.) The statute requires strict compliance in order to determine whether the mechanic qualified himself under the statute to receive the remedies available. More recent cases discussing the perfection of a lien under the statute require the meeting of all statutory requirements in order for the lien to be valid. Mid America Homes, Inc. v. Horn, (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 879, 881 (compliance with notice provisions of IC 1976, 32-8-3-1 (West 1979)); Stanray Corp. v. Horizon Construction, Inc., (1976) Ind.App., 342 N.E.2d 645 (sixty day limit on filing notice); Van Wells v. Stanray Corp., (1976) Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 198. See also Practice Commentary, Grayson, J., Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Liens, IC 32-8-3 (West 1979) 8, 11. I disagree with the majority holding that perfection of the lien is within the remedial division of the statute. The manner in which the lien is perfected gives rise to its existence and the priority of the claimant over other secured or nonsecured creditors. There is nothing “hypertechnical” in this matter. The statute requires that any person seeking to come within its terms must in their notice specifically set forth, inter alia: 1) the name and address of the claimant; 2) the amount claimed; and 3) the name of the owner.2 There is *49nothing difficult in complying with the perfection portion of this statute.
The purpose of notice under IC 32-8-3-3, is to “alert prospective purchasers, lenders, tenants, etc. who may otherwise deal with such owner, without requiring the consideration to be applied first to the discharge of the claimed liens.” It comes at a time when it is unlikely to benefit the owner. Mid America Homes, Inc. v. Horn, 396 N.E.2d at 882. In an instrument to be placed of record, the name should be exactly as that by which title was acquired. This is the name that appears on the transfer books of the auditor, too. See n. 2.
A third party examining the record might well be misled by the failure to name both of the tenants by the entireties. That third party might well think that no lien attached to the property because of the inadequacy of the notice or that the claim may represent a separate debt of the husband. The person seeking to establish such a lien must identify the interest in property sought to be made subject to the lien and since one spouse has no separate interest in property held by the entireties both must be named. See generally Mid America, supra at 882.
In any event, it is not within the duty of this court to lessen (which is what I believe the majority opinion does) the requirements for creation of a lien. There are many methods by which a statute could be construed, some of which are discussed in the majority opinion. I believe that had the General Assembly indicated that one of two owners would be sufficient they could have prefaced the word “owner” with the word “an” instead of the word “the.”3
*50Again, I do not believe this portion of the statute is in need of construction. For these reasons, I would hold that the lien was invalid.

. Maj.Op. 44, 45. While the statute might be considered ambiguous and in need of construction in some particulars, I do not believe the requirement that the owner be named is unclear and in need of construction. This district has recently reviewed some of the rules of statutory construction in Johnson v. Wabash County, (1979) Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 1139, 1143. The fundamental rule stated here is that “a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not and cannot be interpreted by a court, . and, in the absence of an expressed differing legislative intent, words in statutes are given their plain, ordinary meaning.”

. The claimant is given the option of using the Auditor’s transfer records if he chooses as a source of information. Those may or may not include all persons’ names who have an interest in the property. The statutory directive *49that compliance with the notice provision may be achieved by utilizing the records in the Auditor’s Office is but an example of the means in which the notice could be prepared. In its directive, it is permissive, but not exclusive, and would not excuse a lack of specificity otherwise required. The notice also must include the legal description of the property which can only be accurately stated by examination of the owners’ deed.
The transfer records of the Auditor’s Office are compiled from deeds which are submitted for transfer. IC 1976, 6-1.1-5-4 (Bums Supp. 1979) (“[T]he county auditor shall keep a transfer book, arranged by townships, cities, and towns. In the transfer book he shall enter a description, for the purpose of taxation, of land that is conveyed by deed or partition, the date of the conveyance, the names of the parties, and the post office address of the grantee. .”) The names of the grantees are in-' serted on the record and the name of the grantors struck out. The legal description remains. In instances of metes and bounds description, the amount of acreage is usually shown and not the entire description. Utilization of this record to prepare notice is a shortcut to the legal description but should not be construed to authorize a similar shortcut to names of the owner.
“Substantial” as used in the sentence of the statute concerning the Auditor’s transfer books does not refer to compliance with the strict requirements of the statute, but refers to trivial errors of spelling (reflecting the doctrine of idem sonans), misdescription (Coburn v. Stephens, (1894) 137 Ind. 683, 36 N.E. 132), business status of parties (Kendall Lumber & Coal Co. v. Roman, (1950) 120 Ind.App. 368, 91 N.E.2d 187; Waverly Co. v. Moran Electric Service, Inc., (1940) 108 Ind.App. 75, 26 N.E.2d 55).

. For example, it authorizes “any person” who wishes to acquire such a lien. It does not say “person” or “persons.” Any number of persons who wish to come within its terms may do so.
Common usage in the English language does not scrupulously observe a discrete difference between singular and plural word forms, especially when speaking in the abstract, not referring to identified subjects or objects, as in legislation prescribing a general rule for future application. In recognition of this, it is well established, by statute as well as by judicial decision, that legislative terms which are singular in form may apply to multiple subjects or objects and those which are plural in form may apply to single subjects or objects if that is the intended or reasonably understood meaning and effect.
Many systems of statute law contain general interpretation clauses adopting the rules stated above. For example, the opening section of the United States Code declares that “[i]n determining the meaning of any act or resolution of Congress, words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things; (and) words importing the plural number may include the singular; . . .’’By comparison, Florida statutes pronounce,' more succinctly, that “[t]he singular includes the plural and vice versa.” Regardless of their particular form, however, such statutory expressions are to be understood as legislative recitals of a general principle of interpretation, for there are decisions which do not rely on statutory di*50rectives to enlarge the coverage of singular terms and to apply plural terms to single objects or subjects.
Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.34 (Sands 4th ed. (1973)) (notes omitted.)