Title: WILLIAMS BROS CONSTRUCTION v VAUG

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 80-395 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1981 WILLIAMS BROS. CONSTRUCTION, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GEORGE E. VAUGHN and K A T H R Y N M. VAUGHN, Defendants and Appellants. 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 of Fergus, The Honorable Leroy McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana For Respondents: P a r r i s h , Icnopp & 0 ' Ilare, Lewistown, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : May 8 , 1981 Decided : 3 - 1981 JUL '3 @ I 3 1 F i l e d : Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n t h e s p r i n g o f 1977 George Vaughn, d e f e n d a n t h e r e i n a f t e r , purchased a b r i c k home l o c a t e d on Plum Creek i n Fergus County, Montana. H i s p l a n was t o move t h e house t o northwest Lewistown and have i t r e l o c a t e d on a f o u n d a t i o n . I n May of 1977 d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t w i t h Zion Building C o n t r a c t o r t o move t h e house. On June 7, 1 9 7 7 , d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t w i t h W i l l i a m s B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n , p l a i n t i f f h e r e i n a f t e r , whereby p l a i n t i f f would f u r n i s h a l l m a t e r i a l s and perform a l l l a b o r n e c e s s a r y t o complete t h e f o u n d a t i o n and basement f o r a t o t a l p r i c e o f $7,000. A t t h e o u t s e t d e f e n d a n t wished t o have t h e house placed on a completed foundation c o n s t r u c t e d of e i g h t f o o t c o n c r e t e w a l l s . However, a f t e r numerous d i s c u s s i o n s between t h e p a r t i e s it was determined t h a t it would be t o e v e r y o n e ' s b e n e f i t i f t h e f o u n d a t i o n was c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r t h e house was moved and placed over 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 decided t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n could 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 remainder would be done w i t h masonry block. 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 its understanding t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e p r o j e c t would have t o be s u b c o n t r a c t e d . The w r i t t e n contra-ct was o r a l l y modified t o adhere t o t h e a d j u s t m e n t s . The house was moved t o t h e s i t e on August 5 , 1977, and work on t h e f o u n d a t i o n commenced s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r . P l a i n t i f f worked on t h e f o u n d a t i o n through October 4 , 1977. Soon t h e r e a f t e r d e f e n d a n t made arrangements w i t h a t h i r d p a r t y t o have t h e f o u n d a t i o n completed which included work c o n t r a c t e d t o be done by p l a i n t i f f . P l a i n t i f f concluded t h a t its o b l i g a t i o n under t h e o r a l l y modified 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 January 3, 1978, 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 of $4,852 f o r work done. On August 15, 1978, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d its complaint f o r f o r e c l o s u r e of t h e l i e n . On October 6 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t answered 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 f a i l e d t o complete t h e basement, abandoned t h e c o n t r a c t , and asked f o r damages i n t h e amount of $5,046.25. On A p r i l 24, 1979, p l a i n t i f f amended i t s complaint t o i n c l u d e c o n t r a c t and quantum m e r u i t c o u n t s . On January 9, 1980, 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 of a t t o r n e y f e e s was r e s e r v e d f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o t h e v e r d i c t . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e and a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of a l l t e s t i m o n y , d e f e n d a n t made motions t o d i s m i s s which were d e n i e d . The j u r y rendered a v e r d i c t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f on t h e l i e n i n t h e amount of $4,582. Pursuant t o a h e a r i n g , a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s were awarded t o p l a i n t i f f i n t h e amount of $3,683.16. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e v e r d i c t . On appeal d e f e n d a n t contends t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n on m o t i o n s made by d e f e n d a n t . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t p l a i n t i f f r e 1 i e d upon a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t a s a b a s i s f o r a s s e r t i n g its mechanics' l i e n . 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, t h e r e f o r e , 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' l i e n . P l a i n t i f f , on t h e o t h e r hand, contends t h a t t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t was o r a l l y modified; t h a t t h e l i e n 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 agreement; and f u r t h e r t h a t a mechanics' l i e n may a p p l y t o t h a t work completed under a c o n t r a c t which has been modified and recovery had on a guantum m e r u i t b a s i s . I n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n s f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , t h e D i s t r i c t Court determined t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n of f a c t which should be decided by t h e j u r y . I t was t h e j u r y ' s f u n c t i o n t o determine i f t h e a c t i o n was based on t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t , a s d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e s , o r t h e o r a l l y 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 found i n favor of p l a i n t i f f ; and, a f t e r reviewing t h e r e c o r d , w e a g r e e . P l a i n t i f f f i l e d and p e r f e c t e d its mechanics' l i e n i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n s 71-3-501 e t s e q . , MCA. The purpose and n a t u r e of mechanics' l i e n s a r e e n u n c i a t e d i n Smith v. Gunniss ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 115 Mont. 362, 144 P.2d 186, 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 of a mechanic or a materialman t o a l i e n on p r o p e r t y upon w h i c h he h a s s u p p l i e d work, l a b o r o r m a t e r i a l s is n o t dependent upon whether t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y is w r i t t e n or o r a l or whether it is e x p r e s s or imp1 i e d . [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . 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 purpose of p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e payment of t h e c l a i m s of b u i l d e r s , mechanics and materialmen o u t of 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 have c o n t r i b u t e d an i n c r e a s e d v a l u e . For t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h i s c o u r t has long 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 should 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 should 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 purposes o f 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 . [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . 1 ' T h i s l i e n [mechanics' I is a c r e a t u r e of t h e s t a t u t e , and was n o t recognized a t common law. 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 law f o r t h e purpose of s e c u r i n g a p r i o r i t y of payment of t h e p r i c e and v a l u e o f work p e r f o r m e d and m a t e r i a l s f u r n i s h e d i n e r e c t i n g o r r e p a i r i n g 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 such it a t t a c h e s t o t h e l a n d a s w e l l a s t h e b u i l d i n g s e r e c t e d t h e r e o n . 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 expended 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 o f t h e f r e e h o l d , t h a t g i v e s t h e materialman and l a b o r e r h i s l i e n under t h e s t a t u t e . The l i e n is brought i n o p e r a t i o n by v i r t u e of 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 w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o , t h e s t a t u t e . ' Van Stone v. S t i l l w e l l & B i e r c e Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 12 S.Ct. 181, 183, 35 L.Ed. 961, 964 . . ." 144 P.2d a t 189-190. I n d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m h e a l l e g e s p l a i n t i f f breached t h e c o n t r a c t by f a i l i n g t o complete t h e work a s c o n t r a c t e d . The record i n d i c a t e s , however, t h a t p l a i n t i f f completed a p o r t i o n of t h e work a s c o n t r a c t e d . I t was d e f e n d a n t ' s procurement of a t h i r d p a r t y t o f i n i s h t h e foundation which prevented p l a i n t i f f from f u l f i l l i n g 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: "'One who p r e v e n t s o r makes impossible t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o r h a p p e n i n g o f 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 is made t o depend cannot a v a i l himself of its non-performance. I n o t h e r words, he who p r e v e n t s a t h i n g from being done s h a l l never be p e r m i t t e d t o a v a i l h i m s e l f of t h e n o n - p e r f o r m a n c e which h e himself h a s o c c a s i o n e d . ' 12 Am.Jur., s e c . 329, p. 885. "'The abandonment of an improvement b e f o r e t h e completion t h e r e o f , by t h e owner of t h e premises, w i t h o u t f a u l t on t h e p a r t of t h e c o n t r a c t o r , does n o t a b r o g a t e 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 mechanics' l i e n s f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e work done 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 is t o be deemed completed, s o f a r a s t h e r i g h t s of p e r s o n s t o a s s e r t l i e n s is concerned.' 36 Am.Jur., sec. 35, p. 38." 144 P.2d a t 191. The v e r d i c t and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e a f f i r m e d . We concur: a J-IA, K ' d WNLJ4- C h i e f J u s t i c e