Crone, J.
Case Summary
Floyd Freeman, individually, and Clover Homes, Inc. (collectively Clover Homes), bring this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order granting the motion to transfer venue filed by Tracy Nash and Robbyn Nash.1 Clover Homes argues that because the original plaintiffs filed this case in a county with preferred venue, the trial court erred by transferring the action to another county with preferred venue. We agree and therefore reverse.
….
Our supreme court has explained that “[g]enerally, any case may be venued in any court in the state, subject to the right of an objecting party to request that the case be transferred to a preferred venue listed in Rule 75(A).” Randolph Cty. v. Chamness, 879 N.E.2d 555, 556 (Ind. 2008) (emphasis added). Trial Rule 75(A) contains ten subsections, each setting forth criteria establishing preferred venue. Based on these criteria, there can be, and often are, multiple preferred venues in a given case. Id. at 557. The rule, however, does not give priority to any particular preferred venue. Belcher v. Kroczek, 13 N.E.3d 448, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Coffman v. Olson & Co., 872 N.E.2d 145, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). The preferred venue status of a county is determined when an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint. Scribbles, LLC v. Wedgewood by Wedgewood, 101 N.E.3d 844, 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied; see also Painters Dist. Coun. 91 v. Calvert Enter. Elec. Servs., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 254, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“The preferred venue status of a given county can only be determined as of the time a complaint is filed.”) (quoting Shelton v. Wick, 715 N.E.2d 890, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000)). If the county where the complaint was filed is a preferred venue, transfer to another county based on venue is improper. Randolph Cty., 879 N.E.2d at 557; see also Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harter, 671 N.E.2d 861, 863 (Ind. 1996) (“Only if the court in which the action is commenced is not in a county of preferred venue, may the case be transferred to a court of preferred venue.”); Belcher, 13 N.E.3d at 451 (“[A] motion to transfer venue cannot be granted when an action has been filed in a preferred venue.”) (citing Salsbery, 967 N.E.2d at 5). This rule applies even when a party is joined later in the action as a third-party defendant. City of S. Bend, Dep’t of Pub. Works v. D&J Gravel Co., 727 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
The preferred venue subsections in Trial Rule 75(A) at issue here are (1) “the county where the greater percentage of individual defendants included in the complaint resides, or, if there is no such greater percentage, the place where any individual defendant so named resides,” (2) the county where the land or some part thereof is located, including without limitation claims to foreclose liens, and (4) the county where the principal office of a defendant organization is located. Timberland initiated this action by filing its complaint in Putnam County. Freeman is a resident of Putnam County, and Clover Homes has its principal place of business in Putnam County. Under both subsections (1) and (4), Putnam County satisfies the criteria for preferred venue. As mentioned, if the county where the complaint was filed is a preferred venue, transfer to another county based on venue is improper. Randolph Cty., 879 N.E.2d at 557. Nevertheless, the Nashes argue that Hendricks County is the preferred venue for Clover Homes’ claims against them because they sent Clover Homes notice to commence suit to foreclose its mechanic’s lien pursuant to Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-10, and this Court held in Ford, 731 N.E.2d 468, that a complaint to enforce a mechanic’s lien should be filed in the county where the property under lien is located, and if filed in the wrong county, the case should be transferred to the preferred venue.
….
The Nashes’ argument ignores the legal principles that the preferred venue status of a county is determined when an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint, Scribbles, 101 N.E.3d at 848, and if the county where the complaint was filed is a preferred venue, transfer to another county based on venue is improper. Randolph Cty., 879 N.E.2d at 557. Although the Nashes were brought into this action by third-party complaint, we can discern no reason, and the Nashes offer none, to depart from established principles.
….
… In City of South Bend, the court held that a third-party defendant was entitled to transfer to a county of preferred venue where preferred venue had not been established before that party was joined. Id. Here, in contrast, preferred venue was established in Putnam County before the Nashes were joined in the action as third-party defendants. Because this action was filed in a preferred venue, the trial court erred in transferring the action to Hendricks County. Therefore, we reverse the order transferring the action to Hendricks County
Reversed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.