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 : May 8 , 1 9 8 1
Decided : 3 - 1981
JUL '3 @I31
Filed:
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 i t r e l o c a t e d on a f o u n d a t i o n .
In May o f 1977 d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d into a written contract
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 . On J u n e 7 ,
1977, defendant entered into a written contract with
Williams Brothers Construction, plaintiff hereinafter,
whereby plaintiff would furnish 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 house
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 eight foot
concrete walls. 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 after t h e house
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 . 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 t o t h e s i t e on A u g u s t 5 , 1977,
and work on the foundation commenced shortly 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 thereafter defendant made arrangements with a third
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
that its o b l i g a t i o n under 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, 1978, plaintiff filed its complaint for
foreclosure of the lien. On October 6, 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 failed
t o complete t h e basement, 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 . On A p r i l 2 4 , 1979,
plaintiff amended its complaint to include contract and
quantum m e r u i t c o u n t s .
On J a n u a r y 9 , 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 .
By s t i p u l a t i o n , 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. A t t h e conclusion of
plaintiff's case and at the 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 . Pursuant t o a hearing, attorney fees
and costs were awarded to plaintiff in the amount of
$3,683.16. 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 to dismiss the action on motions made by
defendant. Defendant argues t h a t p l a i n t i f f r e 1 i e d upon a
written contract as a basis for asserting its mechanics'
lien. 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, 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
of t h e mechanics' lien.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the
written contract was orally modified; that the lien was
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' l i e n may a p p l y t o t h a t work completed under a
contract which has been modified and recovery had on a
guantum m e r u i t b a s i s .
In denying defendant's motions for a directed
verdict, 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
of 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 . I t was the
jury's 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, or the orally
modified c o n t r a c t , a s p l a i n t i f f contends. The j u r y f o u n d i n
favor of plaintiff; and, after reviewing 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 ' lien in
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 e t s e q . , MCA. The p u r p o s e
and n a t u r e o f m e c h a n i c s ' 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
r e c o g n i z e d a t common l a w . I t may be d e f i n e d
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 counterclaim he alleges plaintiff
breached the c o n t r a c t by failing to c o m p l e t e t h e work as
contracted. The r e c o r d indicates, however, that plaintiff
completed a portion of the work as contracted. It was
defendant's procurement of a third party to finish the
foundation which prevented plaintiff from fulfilling its
o b l i g a t i o n under t h e c o n t r a c t . 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
a v a i l himself of i t s non-performance. In
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 and judgment of the D i s t r i c t Court a r e
affirmed.
We concur:
aJ - I A , K ' d WNLJ4-
Chief Justice