WILLIAMS BROS CONSTRUCTION v VAUG

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-395 I N T E SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M N A A H OTN 1981 WILLIAMS BROS. CONSTRUCTION, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GEORGE E. VAUGHN a n d K T R N M. AH Y VAUGHN, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f F e r g u s , The H o n o r a b l e Leroy McKinnon, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana For Respondents: P a r r i s h , Icnopp & 0 ' I l a r e , Lewistown, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided : Filed: JUL '3 @I31 May 8 , 1 9 8 1 3 - 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . In the spring of 1977 George Vaughn, defendant h e r e i n a f t e r , p u r c h a s e d a b r i c k home l o c a t e d on Plum C r e e k i n F e r g u s C o u n t y , Montana. H i s p l a n was t o move t h e h o u s e t o n o r t h w e s t Lewistown and h a v e In May o f i t r e l o c a t e d on a f o u n d a t i o n . 1977 d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d into a written w i t h Zion B u i l d i n g C o n t r a c t o r t o move t h e h o u s e . 1977, defendant entered Williams Brothers whereby plaintiff into a Construction, would furnish written contract On J u n e 7 , contract plaintiff with hereinafter, a l l materials and p e r f o r m a l l l a b o r n e c e s s a r y t o c o m p l e t e t h e f o u n d a t i o n and b a s e m e n t f o r a t o t a l p r i c e o f $7,000. At the outset defendant wished to have the p l a c e d on a c o m p l e t e d f o u n d a t i o n c o n s t r u c t e d o f concrete walls. house eight foot However, a f t e r numerous d i s c u s s i o n s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t would be t o e v e r y o n e ' s benefit if the f o u n d a t i o n was c o n s t r u c t e d was moved and p l a c e d o v e r t h e e x c a v a t i o n . after t h e house The p a r t i e s a l s o d e c i d e d t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n c o u l d n o t be t o t a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d o u t of c o n c r e t e and t h a t t h e r e m a i n d e r would b e d o n e w i t h masonry b l o c k . S i n c e p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t do masonry work, it was i t s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t would h a v e to be subcontracted. The written contra-ct was orally modified t o adhere t o t h e adjustments. The h o u s e was moved and work on the t o t h e s i t e on A u g u s t 5 , foundation commenced shortly 1977, thereafter. P l a i n t i f f worked on t h e f o u n d a t i o n t h r o u g h O c t o b e r 4 , 1977. Soon third thereafter defendant made arrangements with a p a r t y t o h a v e t h e f o u n d a t i o n c o m p l e t e d w h i c h i n c l u d e d work contracted to be done by plaintiff. Plaintiff concluded its o b l i g a t i o n under that t h e o r a l l y m o d i f i e d c o n t r a c t was t e r m i n a t e d and d i d no a d d i t i o n a l work. On J a n u a r y 3 , 1 9 7 8 , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d its l i e n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r t y i n t h e amount o f $ 4 , 8 5 2 f o r work d o n e . On August 15, foreclosure 1978, of the plaintiff lien. On its filed 6, October complaint 1978, defendant a n s w e r e d and c o u n t e r c l a i m e d , a l l e g i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f t o complete t h e basement, amended its failed abandoned t h e c o n t r a c t , and a s k e d f o r damages i n t h e amount o f $ 5 , 0 4 6 . 2 5 . plaintiff for complaint to On A p r i l 2 4 , include 1979, contract and quantum m e r u i t c o u n t s . On J a n u a r y 9 , By s t i p u l a t i o n , 1 9 8 0 , t h e m a t t e r was t r i e d by a j u r y . t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y f e e s was r e s e r v e d f o r determination pursuant t o the verdict. plaintiff's case and at the A t t h e conclusion of conclusion of all testimony, d e f e n d a n t made m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s which w e r e d e n i e d . The j u r y r e n d e r e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f on t h e l i e n i n t h e amount of $ 4 , 5 8 2 . and costs $3,683.16. were Pursuant t o a hearing, awarded to plaintiff in attorney fees the amount of D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e v e r d i c t . On a p p e a l d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d in failing defendant. written lien. to dismiss Defendant contract as the on motions argues t h a t p l a i n t i f f a basis for asserting made by r e 1 i e d upon a its mechanics' The p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t and, therefore, of t h e mechanics' is n o t e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m b e n e f i t s lien. Plaintiff, written action on the other contract was orally hand, modified; contends that the that lien was the f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o t h a t f i n a l a g r e e m e n t ; and f u r t h e r that a mechanics' contract l i e n may a p p l y t o t h a t work which has been modified completed and recovery motions for under had on a a guantum m e r u i t b a s i s . In verdict, of denying defendant's I t was the f u n c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e a c t i o n was b a s e d on t h e written contract, a s defendant alleges, modified c o n t r a c t , a s p l a i n t i f f contends. favor directed t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n f a c t which s h o u l d be d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y . jury's a of plaintiff; and, after reviewing or the orally The j u r y f o u n d i n the record, we agree. P l a i n t i f f f i l e d and p e r f e c t e d i t s m e c h a n i c s ' a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n s 71-3-501 and n a t u r e o f m e c h a n i c s ' e t s e q . , MCA. lien in The p u r p o s e l i e n s a r e enunciated i n Smith v. G u n n i s s ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 5 Mont. 3 6 2 , 1 4 4 P.2d 1 8 6 , which s t a t e s : "Under our s t a t u t e s , t h e r i g h t o f a m e c h a n i c o r a m a t e r i a l m a n t o a l i e n on p r o p e r t y upon which he h a s s u p p l i e d work, labor or m a t e r i a l s i s n o t d e p e n d e n t upon w h e t h e r t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y i s w r i t t e n or o r a l or whether it is e x p r e s s or imp1i e d . [Citation omitted. 1 Our l i e n s t a t u t e s a r e remedial. They a r e f o r t h e e x p r e s s p u r p o s e o f p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e payment o f t h e c l a i m s o f b u i l d e r s , m e c h a n i c s and m a t e r i a l m e n o u t o f t h e p r o p e r t y t o which t h e i r work and m a t e r i a l h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d a n increased value. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h i s c o u r t h a s l o n g been committed t o t h e view t h a t t h e l i e n s t a t u t e s s h o u l d be g i v e n f u l l e f f e c t and t h a t t h e y s h o u l d r e c e i v e a l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s o t h a t t h e o b j e c t s and p u r p o s e s of s u c h s t a t u t e s may b e c a r r i e d o u t . [Citation omitted. 1 ' T h i s l i e n [mechanics' I i s a c r e a t u r e o f t h e s t a t u t e , and was n o t I t may be d e f i n e d r e c o g n i z e d a t common l a w . t o be a c l a i m c r e a t e d by l a w f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e c u r i n g a p r i o r i t y o f payment o f t h e p r i c e a n d v a l u e o f work p e r f o r m e d a n d materials furnished in erecting or repairing a b u i l d i n g o r o t h e r s t r u c t u r e , and a s s u c h i t attaches t o the land a s well a s the buildings erected thereon. 1 5 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 5. NOW, it is n o t t h e c o n t r a c t f o r e r e c t i n g o r r e p a i r i n g t h e b u i l d i n g which c r e a t e s t h e l i e n , but it is t h e use of t h e m a t e r i a l s f u r n i s h e d and t h e work and l a b o r e x p e n d e d by t h e c o n t r a c t o r , whereby t h e b u i l d i n g becomes a p a r t of t h e f r e e h o l d , t h a t g i v e s t h e m a t e r i a l m a n and l a b o r e r h i s l i e n u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e . The l i e n i s b r o u g h t i n o p e r a t i o n by v i r t u e o f t h e s t a t u t e , and t h e c o n t r a c t f o r b u i l d i n g is e n t e r e d i n t o presumably i n view o f , or with reference t o , t h e s t a t u t e . ' Van S t o n e v . S t i l l w e l l & B i e r c e Mfg. C o . , 142 U.S. 1 2 8 , 1 2 S . C t . 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 , 35 L.Ed. 9 6 1 , 964 1 4 4 P.2d a t 189-190. . . ." In defendant's breached the contracted. completed defendant's foundation counterclaim he c o n t r a c t by failing The r e c o r d a indicates, portion the of procurement which of prevented work a to c o m p l e t e t h e work however, as third from as that plaintiff contracted. party plaintiff o b l i g a t i o n under t h e c o n t r a c t . alleges plaintiff It was finish the fulfilling its to Gunniss f u r t h e r holds: " ' O n e who p r e v e n t s o r makes i m p o s s i b l e t h e performance o r happening of a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t upon which h i s l i a b i l i t y by t h e t e r m s of a c o n t r a c t i s made t o d e p e n d c a n n o t In a v a i l himself of i t s non-performance. o t h e r w o r d s , h e who p r e v e n t s a t h i n g from b e i n g done s h a l l n e v e r be p e r m i t t e d t o a v a i l himself of t h e non-performance which he himself has occasioned.' 1 2 Am.Jur., sec. 329, p . 885. " ' T h e abandonment o f an improvement b e f o r e t h e c o m p l e t i o n t h e r e o f , by t h e owner o f t h e p r e m i s e s , w i t h o u t f a u l t on t h e p a r t o f t h e c o n t r a c t o r , does n o t abrogate t h e r i g h t of t h e c o n t r a c t o r , l a b o r e r s , and m a t e r i a l men t o m e c h a n i c s ' l i e n s f o r t h e v a l u e o f t h e work d o n e and t h e m a t e r i a l f u r n i s h e d . I n such c a s e , t h e b u i l d i n g o r improvement i s t o b e deemed c o m p l e t e d , s o f a r a s t h e r i g h t s o f persons t o a s s e r t l i e n s is concerned.' 36 Am.Jur., sec. 3 5 , p . 3 8 . " 1 4 4 P.2d a t 1 9 1 . The v e r d i c t affirmed. and judgment of the D i s t r i c t Court a r e We concur: aJ - I A , K ' d WNLJ4- Chief Justice

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.