MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 25 2020, 8:40 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Terry K. Hiestand
Hiestand Law Office, LLC
Chesterson, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Property MD’s Home February 25, 2020
Improvement, LLC, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 19A-PL-1764
Appeal from the Porter Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Jeffrey W. Clymer,
Anthony Grayson, Judge
Appellee-Defendant/Counterclaimant, Trial Court Cause No.
64D02-1509-PL-7829
and
Horizon Bank, N.A.,
Appellee-Defendant
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-1764 | February 25, 2020 Page 1 of 3
[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.1 Property MD cites no legal authority in its disjointed argument
1
Each of the paragraphs in Property MD’s statement of the case and inappropriately argumentative
statement of facts is numbered, and most of them contain only one sentence, all of which makes for tedious
reading. They are substantially similar to the proposed findings that Property MD submitted to the trial
court, which serve a different purpose than an appellate brief.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-1764 | February 25, 2020 Page 2 of 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. 2 Accordingly, we
affirm.
[3] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
2
Property MD quotes from a statute and cites legal principles from several opinions but fails to actually
apply any relevant law to the facts of this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-1764 | February 25, 2020 Page 3 of 3