Castle Construction Corp. v. Sharon Leibengood-Chavez

── Castle Construction Corp. v. Sharon Leibengood-Chavez ── Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Date: May 29, 2026 Author: Peter Foley Category: General IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Castle Construction Corp., Michael Vaidik, Filip Zivkovic, and Ark Supplies, Inc., Appellants-Defendants FILED May 29 2026, 10:43 am v. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court Sharon Leibengood-Chavez, Appellee-Plaintiff May 29, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-PL-1373 Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable John M. Sedia, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45D01-2101-PL-25 Opinion by Judge Foley Judge Weissmann concurs. Chief Judge Tavitas dissents with separate opinion. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1373| May 29, 2026 Page 1 of 22  Foley, Judge. [1] Castle Construction Corporation and Michael Vaidik (“Vaidik”) (collectively, “Castle”) appeal the order granting summary judgment to Sharon Leibengood- Chavez (“Homeowner”) and denying Castle’s cross-motion for summary judgment on claims that Castle violated the Home Improvement Contracts Act (“HICA”), i.e., Indiana Code chapter 24-5-11, and that Homeowner was entitled to damages under the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“the DCSA”), i.e., Indiana Code chapter 24-5-0.5. Concluding that neither HICA nor the DCSA applies under the circumstances, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Castle. We also deny Homeowner’s request for appellate attorney fees. Facts and Procedural History [2] Filip Zivkovic operated ARK Supplies, Inc. (collectively, “ARK”), and Vaidik operated Castle Construction Corporation. ARK was not licensed to perform home improvement work in the Town of Cedar Lake, but Castle was licensed to do so. [3] In 2019, Homeowner hired ARK to perform renovations on her residence in Cedar Lake, but ARK did not provide Homeowner with a home improvement contract. Homeowner was unaware that ARK was an unlicensed contractor. In October 2019, Castle obtained the building permit to perform a sunroom addition and construct a deck at Homeowner’s residence. The building permit application listed Castle as the contractor, and Vaidik certified that the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1373| May 29, 2026 Page 2 of 22  information was true and correct, but ARK performed the renovations. ARK reimbursed Castle for the cost of the building permit. Homeowner did not meet with Castle; she never hired Castle to do work on her residence; she was unaware of Castle’s involvement in the project; and Castle did not perform any work on Homeowner’s residence. Homeowner sustained damages to her residence due to unworkmanlike construction performed by ARK. [4] In January 2021, Homeowner filed a complaint for damages against ARK and Castle. Homeowner argued, in part, that Castle and ARK violated HICA, which “is actionable by a consumer as an incurable deceptive act under” DCSA. Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 pp. 33, 42. Homeowner fu