Title: Newport Sand Gravel v. Miller Concrete

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-540


 Newport Sand and Gravel Company              Supreme Court

                                      On Appeal from
      v.                                      Windsor Superior Court

 Miller Concrete Construction,                March Term, 1992
 Inc., et al.


 Richard W. Norton, J.

 Frank H. Olmstead of Sachs & Desmeules, Norwich, for plaintiff-appellee
   Newport Sand & Gravel

 Richard L. Brock of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., Montpelier, for plaintiff-
   appellee Capitol Steel & Supply Co.

 Timothy L. Taylor and William H. Meub of Keyser, Crowley & Meub, P.C.,
   Rutland, for defendant-appellant Simpson Construction, Inc.

 Tavian M. Mayer of Mayer & Berk, South Royalton, for defendant-appellant
   Royalton Town School District


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.   The issue in this appeal is whether and to what extent
 the contractors' lien statute, 9 V.S.A. {{ 1921-28, protects suppliers of
 construction materials when they supply materials to subcontractors of
 general contractors.  On motions for summary judgment, the superior court
 held that suppliers of subcontractors are entitled to a lien against the
 owner of property benefited by the provision of the materials and that the
 extent of protection is judged by the amount owed by the owner to the
 general contractor at the time the notice of lien is received.  The court
 also awarded statutory interest running from the date the complaint was
 filed.  We affirm.
      The facts are unremarkable.  Defendant Royalton Town School District
 contracted with defendant Simpson Construction, Inc. to build an addition to
 one of its schools.  Simpson acted as general contractor for the project.
 It subcontracted with defendant Miller Concrete Construction, Inc. to do
 the concrete work.  Miller Concrete arranged to have plaintiff Newport Sand
 & Gravel, Inc. supply the materials.  Newport fulfilled its obligations
 under the contract, but Miller failed to pay it in the amount of $24,500.
      Newport filed a notice of lien against the District on December 11,
 1987, under 9 V.S.A. { 1921.  At that time, the District owed Simpson, the
 general contractor, over $900,000.  On February 26, 1988, Newport brought
 suit against the District and Miller to enforce the lien.  It also obtained
 a writ of attachment against the District, but Simpson intervened and posted
 a surety bond, obviating the need to serve and record the attachment.  In
 fact, Simpson defended the action, with little or no participation from the
 District, because the District released the remaining contract funds to
 Simpson after it posted the surety bond.  Miller filed bankruptcy, but
 obtained relief from the automatic stay to participate in discovery.
      Although there is no dispute that Miller owed Newport $24,500, there is
 a substantial dispute between Simpson and its subcontractor, Miller, about
 monies due from Simpson to Miller.  Simpson claims it owes Miller only
 $11,875, and contends that if Newport is entitled to a lien at all, it is
 limited by the amount remaining on Simpson's contract with Miller and not by
 the $900,000 owing from the District to Simpson at the time the lien was
 filed.
      The first issue, then, is whether Newport, as a supplier of
 construction materials to subcontractor Miller, may claim the protection of
 the lien statute.  The contractor's lien for labor or material provides:
         (b) A person who by virtue of a contract or agreement,
         either in writing or parol, with an agent, contractor or
         subcontractor of the owner thereof, performs labor or
         furnishes materials for erecting, repairing, moving or
         altering such improvements shall have a lien, to secure
         the payment of the same upon such improvements and the
         lot of land upon which the same stand, by giving notice
         in writing to such owner or his or her agent having
         charge of such property that he or she shall claim a
         lien for labor or material.  Such lien shall extend to
         the portions of the contract price remaining unpaid at
         the time such notice is received.

 9 V.S.A. { 1921(b). Although the present statute was amended as recently as
 1986, Goodro v Tarkey, 112 Vt. 212, 214, 22 A.2d 509, 510 (1941), there has
 been some form of mechanic's or materialmen's lien statute in Vermont since
 1849. 1849, No. 21, { 3.  The lien is purely a creature of statute, and,
 therefore, cases from other jurisdictions, and even Vermont cases decided
 prior to the present statute, have limited application.  T.A. Haigh Lumber
 Co. v. Drinkwine, 130 Vt. 120, 126,