148 N.E.3d 321
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Clover Homes contracted (July 2017) to build a house on the Nashes’ Hendricks County property; Freeman personally guaranteed Clover Homes’ commercial charge account with Timberland.
- Clover Homes recorded a mechanic’s lien on the Hendricks County lot (May 25, 2018); the Nashes served a 30-day notice to commence foreclosure per statute (June 5, 2018).
- Timberland sued Clover Homes in Putnam County for unpaid charges (June 19, 2018). Clover Homes filed third-party claims against the Nashes in Putnam County, including foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien and contract/defamation claims (July 3, 2018).
- The Nashes moved to dismiss or transfer the foreclosure claim, arguing preferred venue for lien foreclosure lies in Hendricks County; they later sought transfer of the entire action.
- The trial court transferred the entire action to Hendricks County. Clover Homes appealed, arguing Putnam County was a preferred venue at the time the action was filed and transfer was therefore improper.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to Hendricks County was proper when action was filed in Putnam County | Nashes: Hendricks is the preferred venue for the lien foreclosure (property located there; statutory notice + Ford v. Culp) so transfer is proper | Clover Homes: Putnam was a preferred venue at filing (Freeman resides there; Clover’s principal place there); if filed in preferred venue, transfer is improper | Reversed: Putnam was a preferred venue at filing; transfer to Hendricks was improper |
| Whether Ford v. Culp controls here | Nashes: Ford allows transfer to county where property is located when foreclosure filed elsewhere | Clover Homes: Ford is distinguishable and partly superseded by amended statute; Trial Rule 75 governs preferred venue and multiple preferred venues may exist | Court: Ford is not dispositive here; Trial Rule 75 principles control and preexisting preferred venue in Putnam defeats transfer |
| Whether Nashes’ misjoinder/partial-transfer argument preserves right to sever and transfer only third-party claim | Nashes: they were misjoined and court should have severed/transferred only the third-party complaint | Clover Homes: misjoinder argument not raised below; venue established in Putnam precludes transfer | Court: Misjoinder argument was not preserved/waived; appellate review limited to venue question; transfer was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Culp Custom Homes, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (interpreting prior mechanic’s‑lien notice statute and permitting transfer under Trial Rule 75)
- Randolph Cty. v. Chamness, 879 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 2008) (preferred venue status determined when complaint is filed; action filed in preferred venue may not be transferred)
- Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harter, 671 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. 1996) (case may be transferred only if original county is not a preferred venue)
- City of S. Bend v. D&J Gravel Co., 727 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (third‑party defendant entitled to transfer when preferred venue not already established)
- Scribbles, LLC v. Wedgewood by Wedgewood, 101 N.E.3d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (preferred venue status is fixed at the time of filing)
- Belcher v. Kroczek, 13 N.E.3d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (motion to transfer cannot be granted where action was filed in a preferred venue)
- Salsbery Pork Producers, Inc. v. Booth, 967 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)