Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PL-1764
02-25-2020
Property MD's Home Improvement, LLC, Appellant-Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. Anthony Grayson, Appellee-Defendant/Counterclaimant, and Horizon Bank, N.A., Appellee-Defendant
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Terry K. Hiestand Hiestand Law Office, LLC Chesterson, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Terry K. Hiestand Hiestand Law Office, LLC Chesterson, Indiana Appeal from the Porter Superior Court The Honorable Jeffrey W. Clymer, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 64D02-1509-PL-7829 Crone, Judge. 2 [1] Property MD's Home Improvement, LLC ("Property MD"), contracted with Anthony Grayson to perform some home repairs. Disputes arose, and Property MD filed a complaint against Grayson and his lender, Horizon Bank, N.A. ("Horizon"), to foreclose on a mechanic's lien and for unjust enrichment. Grayson filed a counterclaim alleging that Property MD had failed to comply with the Indiana Home Improvement Act ("the Act"). Pursuant to a joint stipulation, Horizon deposited $28,936 with the trial court clerk. After a bench trial, the court issued an eight-page order ruling that Grayson owed Property MD $13,297.62, to be paid from Horizon's deposit, under an unjust enrichment theory; that Property MD had violated the Act; that Property MD's lien was invalid; and that neither side was entitled to attorney's fees. Property MD filed a motion to correct error, which was denied. [2] Property MD now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in calculating damages and in failing to award it "the interest and attorney fees to which it was clearly entitled as the holder of a valid Mechanic's Lien." Appellant's Br. at 10. Because Grayson did not submit an appellee's brief, we may reverse the trial court's judgment if Property MD's brief presents a case of prima facie error. Blankenship v. Duke, 132 N.E.3d 410, 412-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). It does not. Property MD cites no legal authority in its disjointed argument 3 regarding damages, which improperly second-guesses the trial court's weighing of evidence and assessment of witness credibility. See Keith v. State, 127 N.E.3d 1221, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) ("[I]t is an appellant's burden to develop his argument on the issues he presents and to support his argument with cogent reasoning, legal authority, and citations to the record on appeal.") (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)); Estate of Henry v. Woods, 77 N.E.3d 1200, 1204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) ("We do not reweigh the evidence nor do we assess witness credibility."). And Property MD's argument regarding interest and attorney's fees wholly fails to establish that its lien was valid. Accordingly, we affirm. [3] Affirmed. May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.