This appeal raises issues regarding the validity of a mechanic’s lien for services performed in the construction of a residence. The homeowners challenge the lien on the grounds that the form of the hen statement does not comply with the requirements of K.S.A. 60-1102(a) and it was not timely filed. Since resolution of this appeal turns on the adequacy of the mechanic’s hen statement itself, we need not reach the timeliness issue. Thus, our recital of the facts is abbreviated to include only those necessary for consideration of the adequacy of the hen statement.
Jerry and Carol Overley contracted with Douglas Buchanan for the construction of a single-family home on land owned by the Overleys in Wichita. The parties also entered into an undated arbitration agreement which does not specifically refer to the project and which was not incorporated by reference into the construction contract. Nevertheless, the parties apparently treated the arbitration agreement as part of the construction contract.
During the course of construction the Overleys objected to the quality of Buchanan’s work. Buchanan refused to make repairs satisfactory to the Overleys, and the Overleys stopped their progress payments to him. Buchanan gave the Overleys written notice of default pursuant to the contract. When the Overleys refused to cure the default, Buchanan initiated arbitration proceedings and filed his mechanic’s lien statement.
The parties participated in arbitration proceedings, following which the arbitrators entered an award in favor of Buchanan in the amount of $49,542.64. Buchanan immediately filed an action in the district court to confirm the award. The Overleys objected and sought to vacate or modify the award. The district court denied relief to the Overleys and confirmed the arbitration award.
The Overleys then sought relief by filing their petition in bankruptcy. The parties later agreed that Buchanan could pursue a state *173mechanic’s hen foreclosure action as an exception from the bankruptcy automatic stay. As a result, Buchanan filed a petition to foreclose his mechanic’s hen. The Overleys unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. They then moved for summary judgment, claiming that Buchanan’s mechanic’s lien statement was defective and had been filed untimely. The court denied summaiy judgment. Later the district court granted Buchanan’s motion to strike the Overleys’ defenses and ordered foreclosure of the mechanic’s hen. This appeal followed.
Adequacy of the Mechanics Lien Statement
The Overleys contend Buchanan’s hen is invalid due to his failure to include his address on the face of the verified hen statement as required by K.S.A. 60-1102(a). Whether Buchanan’s hen statement complied with K.S.A. 60-1102 is a question of law over which our review is unlimited. See LSF Franchise REO I v. Emporia Restaurants, Inc., 283 Kan. 13, 19, 152 P.3d 34 (2007).
Before 1992, the statute describing the contents of a mechanic’s hen statement did not require inclusion of the hen claimant’s address. However, at the time Buchanan filed his hen statement, K.S.A. 60-1102(a) had been amended to require that his verified statement include “the name and address sufficient for service of process of the claimant.”
The purpose of a mechanic’s hen statute is to afford security to any persons or entities furnishing labor, equipment, material, or supphes used or consumed for the improvement of real property under a contract with the owner or the owner’s general contractor. While we liberally construe our mechanic’s lien statute once a lien has attached, Kansas law requires strict comphance with the procedure prescribed in the statute in order to perfect a mechanic’s hen. Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Services Ltd., 259 Kan. 166, 170, 910 P.2d 839 (1996).
The statute does not require the filing of any particular form of mechanic’s hen statement, only that the requisite information be included. A verified mechanic’s hen statement need not be composed of a single document. In fact, K.S.A. 60-1102(a) specifically contemplates the incorporation by reference of information con*174tained in an attachment to the mechanic’s Hen statement. K.S.A. 60-1102(a)(4) permits the attachment of a promissory note to the claim in lieu of an itemized statement. Nevertheless, Kansas law is clear that a mechanic’s lien statement must not only contain the requisite information but also be fully verified. “[T]he lack of a verification in the statement filed necessarily defeats the hen.” Kansas Lumber Co. v. Wans, 12 Kan. App. 2d 20, 22, 733 P.2d 1266 (1987).
The problem in the present case arises when we consider whether Buchanan properly verified his address. Here, Buchanan used a preprinted hen statement form which identified the Overleys as the owners, Buchanan as the contractor, the legal description of the properly, and the amount claimed for which a hen was asserted. It also specified that “said labor and materials and the items thereof, as nearly as practical, are set forth in the bill of items hereto attached, made a part of this statement, and marked Exhibit ‘A’.” (Emphasis added.) There followed Buchanan’s signature and his verification of the truth of his hen statement.
Exhibit A, attached to the hen statement, consisted of a multitude of bills and invoices for labor and materials provided to the project, many of which contained a mailing address for Buchanan in Derby. The contract between Buchanan and the Overleys was a cost-plus contract which obligated the Overleys to “pay for all materials and labor required to construct the residence to the point of occupancy.” Buchanan’s fee was “a 10% contracting fee” applied to the overall cost of construction. The invoices attached to Buchanan’s hen statement, which showed his address, were invoices sent to him by suppliers of labor and materials to the project. The address for Buchanan shown on the invoices was the address used by the supphers.
K.S.A. 60-1102(a)(4) requires the hen claimant to include in the hen statement “a reasonably itemized statement and the amount of the claim, but if the amount of the claim is evidenced by a written instrument, or if a promissory note has been given for the same, a copy thereof may be attached to the claim in lieu of the itemized statement.” Buchanan’s hen statement claims $49,285.63 for labor and materials on tire project, “and said labor and materials *175and the items thereof, as nearly as practicable, are set forth in the bill of items hereto attached, made a part of this statement and marked Exhibit ‘A’.” In the verification of his mechanic’s lien statement, Buchanan asserts that he is “the above named contractor and claimant and that the foregoing statement is true.”
The relevant statement Buchanan verified as true is that the charges that make up his $49,285.63 claim are set forth in the bills attached as Exhibit A. Nowhere does he verify that the address used by suppliers on a number of the attached invoices is sufficient for service of process upon him. Nowhere else in his lien statement does Buchanan state his address.
The present dispute is typical of those between owners and contractors . An owner who is dissatisfied with the adequacy of the work often stops progress payments to the contractor and demands corrections. When negotiations stall, either the contractor files a mechanic’s lien, or the owner hires another contractor to complete the job and files an action against the original contractor for breach of contract, or both. In 1992, the legislature amended K.S.A. 60-1102 to require that the lien claimant provide an address sufficient for service of process. The purpose of the 1992 amendment is to provide the owner with an address in order to perfect service of process on the contractor in, for example, such a breach of contract suit.
Here, an address for Buchanan was contained in the invoices incorporated by reference into the lien statement. There apparently is no contention that the address was insufficient to effect service of process on Buchanan. However, it has long been the law of this state to demand strict compliance with our statutory requirements in order to perfect a mechanic’s hen. As stated in Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 635, 400 P.2d 707 (1965):
“It is a settled rule in this state that equitable considerations do not ordinarily give rise to a mechanic’s lien. Being created by statute, a mechanic’s lien can only arise under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed by the statute. A lien claimant must secure a lien under the statute or not at all. [Citation omitted.]”
This court is duty bound to follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent, absent some indication the court is departing from its pre*176vious position. State v. Singleton, 33 Kan. App. 2d 478, 488, 104 P.3d 424 (2005); Noone v. Chalet of Wichita, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1230, 1236, 96 P.3d 674, rev. denied 278 Kan. 846 (2004).
In its memorandum decision on this point, the district court relied upon Trane Co. v. Bakkalapulo, 234 Kan. 348, 352, 672 P.2d 586 (1983), for the proposition that “an affidavit referring to an attached instrument ‘is as full and complete as if the matters stated in such instrument were set out in the affidavit itself.’ ” We do not believe that Trane controls. In Trane, attorney Charles Wilson, having a power of attorney from his client giving him authority to do so, filed a mechanic’s lien statement on behalf of his client. He signed the statement: “Charles R. Wilson, Attorney at Law and Attorney in fact for Claimant.” The verification which followed, however, was signed by Wilson without any description of his authority. Our Supreme Court stated: “The purpose of the verification is to verify the truth of the matter set forth in the document being verified. ‘A verification is an affidavit attached to a statement as to the truth of the matters therein set forth.’ [Citation omitted.]” 234 Kan. at 352. Since the hen statement recited that Wilson was attorney in fact for the claimant, this assertion was sworn to in the verification and it was unnecessaiy for Wilson to repeat in the verification his authority to act for his client, the claimant. In the case now before us, “the matter set forth in the document being verified” was not that Buchanan could be served with process at an address in Derby, not even that Buchanan’s address was in Derby. He simply verified that “the foregoing statement is true.” With respect to the invoices attached as Exhibit A, the assertion which he verified was that the labor and materials provided on the project were fairly set forth in the attached invoices, nothing more.
This court has taken seriously the admonition to demand strict compliance with the statute in order to uphold a mechanic’s lien. For example, in Lewis v. Wanamaker Baptist Church, 10 Kan. App. 2d 99, Syl., 692 P.2d 397 (1984), the verification of a mechanic’s hen statement was found deficient because the claimant, who verified the statement, did so “to the best of [his] knowledge and belief.” The court concluded that the fact that one can presume the claimant, who was a sole proprietor and who verified the *177lien statement, would have actual knowledge of the work performed and the materials supphed did not excuse a less than absolute verification of the truth of the facts asserted in the hen statement. Further, the fact that pretrial discovery could later disclose the truth of claimant’s statement did not overcome the defect in the hen statement. 10 Kan. App. 2d at 101-02.
In summary, the statute requires that the claimant verify the truth of the facts asserted in the mechanic’s hen statement. The mechanic’s hen statement asserted that the labor and materials supphed to the project were set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Buchanan verified this fact: that the labor and materials supphed to the project were set forth in Exhibit A. He did not state, nor did he verify, his address for purposes of service of process, as required by the statute. Accordingly, Buchanan failed to comply with the requirements of the statute for perfection of a mechanic’s hen.
Because Buchanan failed to strictly comply with the requirements of K.S.A. 60-1102 by not verifying his address sufficient for service of process, the district court erred in holding that the hen was valid. Given this outcome, it is unnecessary for us to consider the Overleys’ claim that Buchanan’s mechanic’s hen statement was not filed in a timely manner.
Reversed.