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, JM Woodworking Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED Jan 23 2013, 9:28 am FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC.: JAMES O. WAANDERS Indianapolis, Indiana DONALD J. STUCKEY Auburn, Indiana STEPHEN J. HARANTS Miller & Harants New Haven, 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. SPRINGFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 17A04-1206-PL-297 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 ยง 3228-3-1(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. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
