Case Title: CLIMATE CONTROL CO v BERGSIEKER R

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-81 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 CLIMATE CONTROL COMPANY, INC., a Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, BERGSIEKER REFRIGERATION INC . , et al., Defendant, Respondent and Third- Party Plaintiffs. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: S. Y . Larrick, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Hash, Jellison, OIBrien and Bartlett, Kalispell, Montana Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and Phillips, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 9, 1982 Decided: February 1, 1982 Filed: FE5 I - 1982 q5!iiaw // 0:. K ! * , w Clerk Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Climate Control brought an action for debt and for foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. Following a motion for summary judgment, Climate Control presented an extensive written offer of proof with proposed exhibits. The District Court of Flathead County awarded summary judgment to Arrow- head, Inc., holding that Climate Control did not create or have a valid mechanic's lien, and Arrowhead, Inc., was awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit to be determined by the District Court. We affirm the holding that a valid mechanic's lien was not created. The key issue which determines the case is whether the District Court erred in holding that the claimed mechanic's lien was invalid because the affidavit in the claim of lien was not legally sufficient. We will briefly refer to the other issues which are not controlling. Climate Control is a distributor of airconditioning equipment. Bergsieker is a dealer in airconditioning equip- ment. Climate Control entered into an agreement with Bergsieker for the sale of various airconditioning equipment to be installed by Bergsieker in the Outlaw Inn owned by third party defendant, Arrowhead, Inc. Climate Control contends it received no payment from Bergsieker for such equipment furnished to the Outlaw Inn, and contends there is in excess of $30,000.00 owing. On November 6, 1974, Climate Control filed a claim of lien and statement of account in the office of the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder. In pertinent part, the claim of lien and statement of account said: "That Climate Control, Co., I n c . , a Washington corporation duly authorized t o t r a n s a c t business within t h e S t a t e of Montana, d i d , between Sept- ember, 1973 and t h e 7th day of August, 1974, f u r n i s h c e r t a i n cooling and heating equipment and s u p p l i e s and r e l a t e d and a s s o c i a t e d m a t e r i a l s . . . That t h e r e i s due, owing and unpaid t o t h i s claimant t h e sum of $29,868.00 on account of t h e equipment, supplies and m a t e r i a l s s o furnished. . . "That a statement of account of s a i d equipment, s u p p l i e s and m a t e r i a l s is h e r e t o annexed a s e x h i b i t 'A' and by t h i s reference made a p a r t hereof. . . "That t h e sum of $29,868.00, together with i n t e r e s t a t t h e l e g a l r a t e i s now j u s t l y due and owing t o t h i s claimant a f t e r allowing a l l o f f s e t s and c r e d i t s . . . ( a d e s c r i p t i o n of r e a l p r o p e r t i e s included)." The v e r i f i c a t i o n by a f f i d a v i t s t a t e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " S t a t e of Montana ) 1 SS. "County of Flathead ) "Donald J. LaPlante, being f i r s t duly sworn deposes and says: That he is t h e Treasurer of Climate Control Company, I n c . , t h e claimant named i n t h e foregoing claim of l i e n and s t a t e - ment of accounts; t h a t s a i d account contains a j u s t and t r u e account of t h e amount due s a i d claimant f o r equipment, s u p p l i e s and m a t e r i a l s furnished, a f t e r allowing a l l c r e d i t s and o f f s e t s ; t h a t s a i d claimant's statement contains a c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e property t o be charged with s a i d l i e n ; and t h a t - a l l o f p t h e f a c t s s t a t e d i n ---- s a i d claim and statement a r e t r u e t o t h e b e s t - - - - - - - - - - - ----- of h i s knowledge, information and b e l i e f . " -- (Underscoring added. ) Attached t o t h e claim a r e copies of invoices from Climate Control. From t h e invoices it appears t h a t various described equipment was furnished between September, 1973 and August 7 , 1974. The f i l i n g d a t e of November 6, 1974, is t h e 9 1 s t day following t h e s t a t e d f i n a l d a t e f o r furnishing of a i r - conditioning equipment. Section 71-3-511, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h a t a mechanic's l i e n be f i l e d within 90 days a f t e r t h e m a t e r i a l s have been furnished. I n r u l i n g on t h e motion f o r summary judgment by defendant, Arrowhead, t h e D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t summary judgment should be entered inasmuch a s Climate C o n t r o l ' s n o t i c e of l i e n was not f i l e d within 90 days of t h e end of t h e period i n which t h e n o t i c e a s s e r t s t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l s were furnished, t h a t the n o t i c e was n o t amended within t h e time period during which a l i e n could be f i l e d , and t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t incorporated i n such l i e n is not l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t , and, t h e r e f o r e , s t a t e d i n i t s judgment: "1. That Arrowhead is awarded summary judgment t h a t p l a i n t i f f (Climate Control) d i d n o t c r e a t e a v a l i d l i e n and does n o t have a l i e n a g a i n s t t h e described r e a l property. " 3 . Arrowhead i s e n t i t l e d t o reasonable a t t o r - ney's f e e s and i t s c o s t s of s u i t t o be paid by p l a i n t i f f Climate Control and c o u r t r e s e r v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o conduct a hearing t o determine such f e e s . " The i s s u e a s t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e a f f i d a v i t attached t o t h e mechanic's l i e n claim is determined by Saunders Cash- Way, e t c . v. Herrick (1978), 179 Mont. 233, 587 P. 2d 947. Climate Control attempts t o d i s t i n g u i s h Saunders by arguing t h a t t h e a f f i a n t d i d p o s i t i v e l y s t a t e t h a t t h e account contains a j u s t and t r u e account of t h e amount due and t h a t it a l s o contains a c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e property, which a r e t h e e s s e n t i a l requirements under s e c t i o n 71-3-511, MCA. A c a r e f u l reading of t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n answers t h i s contention. I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e a f f i a n t s t a t e s t h a t t h e account contains a j u s t and t r u e account and t h a t t h e statement contains a c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e property. However, those p o s i t i v e statements a r e q u a l i f i e d by t h e l a s t p o r t i o n of t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n i n which t h e a f f i a n t s t a t e d : ". . . - and t h a t a l l of t h e f a c t s s t a t e d i n s a i d claim and statement a r e ---- -- t r u e t o t h e b e s t of h i s knowledge, information and b e l i e f . " ------ That q u a l i f y i n g statement c l e a r l y l i m i t s t h e preceding " p o s i t i v e " statements s o t h a t we must determine t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of a v e r i f i c a t i o n which s t a t e s t h a t t h e f a c t s a r e t r u e t o t h e b e s t of an a f f i a n t ' s knowledge, information and b e l i e f . Saunders i s d i r e c t l y comparable t o t h e p r e s e n t case. The v e r i f i c a t i o n i n Saunders, which was determined by t h i s Court t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t , s t a t e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : ". . . t h a t t h e matters and t h i n g s t h e r e i n set f o r t h a r e t r u e ( t o t h e b e s t ) of h i s knowledge, (information and b e l i e f ) . " With t h e exception of t h e use of p a r e n t h e s i s , which i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e wording i s almost i d e n t i c a l t o t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case. I n explaining why a p o s i t i v e a f f i d a v i t i s e s s e n t i a l , t h i s Court i n Saunders, 179 Mont. a t 236, 587 P.2d a t 949, s t a t e d : "Such a requirement i s necessary because of t h e extraordinary r i g h t imposed by t h e mechanic's l i e n . Once t h e l i e n i s p e r f e c t e d , it has p r i o r - i t y over any p r i o r l i e n , encumbrance o r mortgage upon t h e land. Section 45-506, R.C.M. 1947. [Now 71-3-502 (3) , MCA. ] This extraordinary claim should n o t be placed on t h e property of another unless t h e f a c t s o u t of which t h e l i e n a r i s e s a r e vouched f o r on o a t h by some person who knows them t o e x i s t . Globe Iron Roofing & Corrugating Co. v. Thatcher (1889), 87 Ala. 458, 6 So. 366, 367. The sanction of p e r j u r y i n s u r e s t h e v e r a c i t y of t h e statements made by t h e per- son with knowledge. Thus a test of t h e s u f f i - ciency of t h e a f f i d a v i t t o a mechanic's l i e n i s whether perjury is assignable upon t h e v e r i - f i c a t i o n t o it. Gregg v. Sigurdson (19231, 67 Mont. 272, 215 P. 662, 663." I n pointing o u t t h a t t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n statement was n o t equivalent t o a d e c l a r a t i o n under o a t h t h a t t h e matter i s t r u e , t h i s Court i n Saunders, 179 Mont. a t 237, 587 P.2d a t 9 4 9 , s t a t e d : "This Court has s t a t e d ' t h a t an a f f i d a v i t s o worded i s i n no sense equivalent t o a de- c l a r a t i o n under oath t h a t t h e matter contain- ed t h e r e i n i s t r u e . ' Rogers-Templeton Lumber Co. v. Welch (1919), 56 Mont. 321, 184 P. 838, 840. I f t h e items contained i n t h e statement w e r e i n f a c t f a l s e , R. A. Saunders could n o t be charged with perjury based on t h e v e r i f i c a - t i o n as it i s worded." This Court in Saunders further emphasized that a verification must also be considered from the standpoint of the rules of evidence to determine if it meets such standards. The Court stated at 179 Mont. at 237-238, 587 P.2d at 949-950: "The verification is insufficient in another respect. When a lienor asks the Court to en- force a mechanic's lien and foreclosure, the lienor is asking the Court to impose an extra- ordinary right upon the property involved. The lienor asks the Court to take such action based upon the complaint and accompanying affidavit as proof of the existence of the lien. Thus the complaint and affidavit in this situation 'must be considered from the standpoint of evidence and tested by the rules of evidence, rather than those of plead- ing and practice.' Benepe-Owenhouse Co. v. Scheidegger (1905), 32 Mont. 424, 80 P. 1024, 1026. See, Fisk Co. v. Lanstrum (1934), 96 Mont. 279, 30 "This consideration is particularly relevant in the present situation where the parties submitted stipulated facts to the District Court, including the notice of the lien and supporting affidavit, and upon this proof asked for a decision. If the allegations contained in the notice and affidavit are made positively and sworn to as of the affiant's own knowledge, there is no appar- ent reason why they may not convince a court of their truth. Benepe-Owenhouse Co. v. Scheidegger, supra. 'If the allegations, however positively made, are sworn to only upon information furnished to the affiant by some third person, then they are merely hearsay, and ought not to have been given any evidentiary value, for the evidence nec- essary to move the [court] must be legal evi- dence.' Benepe-Owenhouse Co. v. Scheidegger, supra. I' As in Saunders, it cannot be ascertained here from the affidavit of Mr. LaPlante what portion of the facts is declared upon his own knowledge, what portion upon information furnished from other sources and what sources those might be, what portion is upon his mere belief, and what portion may be a deduction from facts and circumstances as they appeared to him. Such an affidavit is insufficient and will not support a claim for a mechanic's lien. Climate Control submitted an extensive o f f e r of proof which included f a c t s claimed t o support t h e i r contention t h a t equipment had been furnished within t h e 90 days p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e claim of l i e n s o t h a t t h e e r r o r i n d a t e contained i n t h e l i e n claim should not be enforced a g a i n s t them. While t h e f a c t s and the law might j u s t i f y a c o u r t i n disregarding such an e r r o r i n d a t e , because of our holding on t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n question, t h i s matter w i l l n o t be considered. W e a f f i r m t h e summary judgment f o r t h e defendant, Arrowhead, Inc. W e Concur: