TIMBERLAND LUMBER COMPANY v. Martinsville Real Property LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING FILED 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. Nov 10 2021, 8:47 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Tammy L. Ortman Lewis & Kappes, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana Richard B. Kaufman Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Timberland Home Center INC., d/b/a Timberland Lumber Company, November 10, 2021 Appellant-Plaintiff, Appeal from the Marion Superior Court v. Martinsville Real Property LLC, Appellee-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CT-616 The Honorable Gary L. Miller, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D03-1910-CT-044548 Robb, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 21A-CT-616| November 10, 2021 Page 1 of 2 [1] This case comes before us on rehearing.1 In Timberland Home Ctr. Inc. v. Martinsville Real Prop., LLC, No. 21A-CT-616, 2021 WL 4468407 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2021), we concluded, in part, that Timberland did not judicially admit their mechanic’s lien was untimely. Martinsville petitions for rehearing, raising multiple issues, including that the court misapplied the term “pleadings” in deciding the judicial admission issue. We grant rehearing to re-affirm our original conclusion. The court’s reference to motions as pleadings does not change the outcome of the case. The other issues raised by Martinsville were fully discussed in the original opinion and need not be addressed here. [2] We grant Martinsville’s petition for rehearing, but in doing so we re-affirm our original opinion in all respects. Bradford, C.J., and Altice, J., concur. 1 Martinsville filed a Motion to Strike that is being denied by separate order. We did not consider anything improperly before this court and the portions of Timberland’s Response to Petition for Rehearing that Martinsville requests be struck do not affect the outcome of Martinsville’s Petition for Rehearing. Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 21A-CT-616| November 10, 2021 Page 2 of 2
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.
