Terry Banks v. Denny Jamison, d/b/a, Automotive Hammerart
12 N.E.3d 968
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Banks left his 1973 Dodge Challenger with Jamison (Automotive HammerArt) for painting, sandblasting, and installation of parts; the parties dispute whether additional bodywork was authorized.
- Jamison performed extensive work, billed $5,082, and received a $500 partial payment from Banks; Banks disputed authorization for most repairs.
- Jamison retained possession, engaged a lien processor, sent certified-mail notices of a possessory mechanic’s lien and a December 29, 2011 auction; both certified-mail items were returned unclaimed.
- Jamison sold the Challenger at a non-judicial foreclosure auction under Indiana’s possessory mechanic’s lien statute; Banks sued for theft, conversion, and DCSA violations.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for Jamison, holding Banks was collaterally estopped from challenging the lien/sale and therefore could not prove theft, conversion, or a DCSA (a)(14) claim; Banks appealed.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed summary judgment on theft and conversion (no mens rea), reversed the collateral-estoppel ruling (owner may challenge lien), held the lien invalid because certified-mail notices lacked proof of receipt, and allowed the remaining DCSA claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Banks) | Defendant's Argument (Jamison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the possessory mechanic’s lien foreclosure precludes collateral attack on lien validity and related tort/DCSA claims | Banks says he may challenge the lien’s validity (some work unauthorized); sale did not adjudicate issues, so no preclusion | Jamison says owner must challenge lien before the foreclosure sale (e.g., replevin); failure to do so estops later attack and bars tort/DCSA claims | Court: Trial court erred — issue preclusion does not apply because there was no prior adjudication; owner may challenge the lien post-sale in court |
| Whether statutory notice requirement (certified mail, return receipt) was satisfied so lien foreclosure was valid | Banks says he did not receive certified-mail notices; without proof of receipt lien invalid | Jamison says he complied by sending certified-mail and newspaper notice; Trial Rule 4.16 means owner cannot avoid notice by ignoring it | Court: Statute requires certified mail return receipt showing receipt; here notices were returned unclaimed, so lien was invalid |
| Whether Jamison’s conduct supports civil theft and criminal-conversion claims (unauthorized control; mens rea) | Banks contends work and sale were unauthorized, constituting unauthorized control and meeting culpability | Jamison contends he reasonably believed he had consent and a valid lien and attempted to follow notice procedures, so lacked requisite intent/knowledge | Court: Summary judgment for Jamison affirmed on theft and conversion — designated evidence shows Jamison acted in good faith and lacked the mens rea required |
| Whether DCSA subsection (a)(14) claim (repair without authorization knowing or should know) survives | Banks asserts Jamison repaired without authorization and knew or should have known | Jamison argues Banks cannot show lack of authorization or that Jamison knew it was unauthorized, especially given lien procedures | Court: (a)(14) claim cannot be dismissed on collateral-estoppel grounds; because lien was invalid on notice grounds, Banks may proceed on at least one DCSA claim (subsection (a)(5) also remains) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kopczynski v. Barger, 887 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 2008) (summary-judgment standard review rules)
- Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2012) (moving party’s initial burden in summary judgment)
- Miller v. Dobbs, 991 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. 2013) (construe evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Jones v. Harner, 684 N.E.2d 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (distinguishing possessory and nonpossessory mechanic’s liens)
- Hendrickson & Sons Motor Co. v. Osha, 331 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (possessory mechanic’s lien foreclosure by sale upon notice)