RIVERA GROUP LLC RG LLC v. EPIC 001 LLC LLC LLC LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Rivera Group LLC and RG Development LLC (collectively, “RG”)¹ appeals the trial court's judgment for Epic 001 LLC (“Epic”) following a bench trial.² RG raises four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 3

[2] In November 2020, Epic entered into an agreement with RG, which they later amended, to build a new home and garage on certain property in Indianapolis owned by Epic. Pursuant to their amended agreement, Epic would use nine loan draws in order to pay RG upon the completion of certain benchmarks in the construction of the home. The total amount of the agreement would require Epic to pay RG $256,500.

[3] By mid-April 2021, Epic had made four of the nine loan draws and had paid RG $156,400. However, RG had not in fact completed the necessary construction benchmarks to merit those four draws, and Epic began to request that RG provide it with scheduling information and billing records, which RG declined to do. Epic also observed that the work RG had done was not up to a workmanlike standard. Epic pointed out the poor work to RG, and RG represented that the poor work would be corrected by the end of the project.

[4] In May, the City of Indianapolis issued a Notice of Code Violation to RG, which identified eighteen code violations in RG's workmanship at the property, including RG “covering up work before it could be inspected.” Appellants’ App. Vol. 2, p. 240. The covered-up work included the house's foundation. RG did not correct the code violations by the City's deadline and also ignored Epic's request for related information and an action plan.

[5] On June 2, Epic replaced RG's alarm system and door locks at the property with Epic's own equipment. Epic did this so it could “track when and which contractors were on site” to “track the corrective work” that needed to be done. Id. at 241. Epic informed RG that “anyone requiring access” to the site simply needed to contact one of Epic's representatives for an access code. Id. At least for some time thereafter, RG “was able to continue work on the property,” which focused primarily on attempting to correct the code violations. Id.

[6] On June 29, Epic terminated its agreement with RG due to RG's “continued non-cooperation” with correcting Epic's quality concerns at the property. Id. At the time Epic terminated RG, the work at the property was approximately 75% complete. Epic then hired other contractors to fix RG's poor work and complete the house and garage, which cost Epic an additional $8,800 in plumbing work and $31,248 for correcting RG's mistakes.

[7] Despite knowing that it had not completed the work at the property, RG filed a mechanic's lien against the property for the balance of its agreement with Epic. Epic demanded the lien be released, but RG did not do so. At least one interested buyer of the property did not close on it because of RG's lien.

[8] As relevant to this appeal, RG filed suit against Epic on the theory that Epic had breached the agreement between them. The parties agreed to post a bond in the lien amount and to release the lien; the bond, however, required Epic to pay an additional annual premium of $3,877. Epic later filed an answer and counterclaim against RG and alleged, in relevant part, breach of contract and slander of title.

[9] The trial court held a bench trial on the parties’ claims in March 2025. Following the testimony of witnesses for both sides, the court entered judgment for Epic on all claims relevant to this appeal. In particular, the court entered judgment for Epic on RG's breach-of-contract claim and Epic's breach-of-contract and slander-of-title claims. On Epic's breach-of-contract claim against RG, the court awarded Epic damages in the amount of $40,048. The court also concluded that Epic's successful slander-of-title claim entitled Epic to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

[10] This appeal ensued.

Standard of Review

[11] RG appeals the trial court's judgment for Epic following a bench trial. The court's judgment is supported by findings of fact and conclusions thereon. We will set aside such a judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Cooley v. Cooley, 229 N.E.3d 561, 564 (Ind. 2024). A judgment is clearly erroneous if the evidence does not support the findings or the findings do not support the judgment. See id. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment and do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. See id.

RG's arguments on appeal fail.

[12] On appeal, RG first argues that Epic breached the agreement between them first when Epic terminated RG and restricted RG's access to the property. See, e.g., Fischer v. Heymann, 12 N.E.3d 867, 872 (Ind. 2014) (discussing the remedies available to a nonbreaching party). But RG's argument here is simply a request for our Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Epic's evidence included the testimony of Zach Douglas, the president of the replacement contractor company at the property, and his testimony substantiated Epic's claims that RG's work was substandard. The trial court's rejection of RG's breach-of-contract claim is therefore not clearly erroneous.

[13] RG next asserts that the trial court's judgment for Epic on the slander-of-title claim is clearly erroneous because RG filed its lien with probable cause and in good faith. Cf. Country Contractors, Inc. v. A Westside Storage of Indianapolis, Inc., 4 N.E.3d 677, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stating the elements of slander of title). But the trial court found that RG had been paid for the work it had done, and RG thus knowingly filed its lien in an amount to which it was not entitled. RG contends that its claim for a lien in a greater amount than the value of the services it actually provided to Epic was “an honest mistake.” Appellants’ Br. at 16. RG's argument is simply another request for our Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

[14] RG also contends that its lien did not cause Epic to suffer a required pecuniary loss. See Country Contractors, 4 N.E.3d at 691. Again, the trial court found otherwise, concluding that the lien required Epic to post a bond to remove the lien so Epic could sell the property during the litigation, and the bond caused Epic to incur premium payments that it otherwise would not have incurred. And we agree with Epic that RG has “failed to provide any authority” in support of RG's pecuniary-loss argument. Appellees’ Br. at 40. RG cites only our Court's opinion in U.S. Bank v. Jewell Investments, Inc., 69 N.E.3d 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), in support of its position that premium payments incurred in support of a bond as a substitute for a lien are not recoverable, but our opinion in U.S. Bank is about mortgage priorities and supports no such proposition. We reject RG's argument accordingly.

[15] RG also argues that the trial court's award of damages to Epic for Epic's breach-of-contract claim is in error because RG “substantially performed” its side of the agreement. Appellants’ Br. at 20. We understand this argument to be that RG fulfilled its end of the bargain and Epic failed to do so, which is the same argument we addressed above. For the same reasons, RG's argument here fails.

[16] Last, RG asserts that the trial court erred in finding that Epic is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees for RG's slander of title. Again, RG's argument here is premised on RG's assumption that our Court would agree with RG's arguments above, and we do not. RG has failed to show the trial court erred in finding that Epic is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

[17] Epic argues on appeal that it is entitled to an award of reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees because RG's brief includes poor citation forms and poor descriptions of the law. Epic's request is well-taken, but we are reluctant to award attorneys’ fees in the absence of procedural or substantive bad faith. See, e.g., Staff Source, LLC v. Wallace, 143 N.E.3d 996, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). And we are not persuaded that RG's briefing and arguments on appeal are so lacking that they meet those high bars. We therefore decline to award Epic its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.

Conclusion

[18] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment for Epic.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Rivera Group LLC and RG Development LLC stipulated in the trial court that they are alter egos of each other.

2.   RG does not appeal the trial court's judgment for Prestige Investments LLC, Paradigm Construction and Development LLC, or K&D Epic Holdings LLC.

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.