Title: Kirkland v. Oberquell
Citation: 405 N.W.2d 21
Docket Number: 11282
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: April 29, 1987

405 N.W.2d 21 (1987) John KIRKLAND and Cleo Kirkland, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Duane D. OBERQUELL; Sidney Design Construction, Inc.; Great Plains Supply Company of Watford City, North Dakota, and Great Plains Supply Company of Sidney, Montana; Anderson Lumber Company; and Bernard J. Connor, d/b/a Connor Masonry, Defendants, and Cooperative Supply Co., Inc.; Watford City Ready-Mix, Inc.; Craig Nelson, d/b/a Nelson Contracting Co., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. No. 11282. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 29, 1987. Bjella, Neff, Rathert, Wahl &amp; Eiken, Williston, and William L. Strate, Watford City, for plaintiffs and appellees; argued by Paul W. Jacobson. Kent Morrow, Watford City, for defendants Duane D. Oberquell, Sidney Design Const., Inc., and Bernard J. Connor, d/b/a Connor Masonry. F. Leslie Forsgren, Crosby, for defendant Anderson Lumber Co. Harms &amp; Leier, Williston, for defendants and appellants; argued by Robert W. Harms. MESCHKE, Justice. Craig Nelson, d/b/a Nelson Contracting Co., Cooperative Supply Co., Inc., and Watford City Ready-Mix, Inc. (hereafter collectively "these subcontractors") appealed from a judgment voiding their mechanic's liens on real estate owned by John and Cleo Kirkland and dismissing their claims against the Kirklands arising out of construction of a home. We affirm. John Kirkland hired Sidney Design Construction, Inc. to replace the basement and to add a family room, new kitchen, and garage to the Kirklands' home. The written agreement provided, in relevant part: Sidney Design began construction and contracted with various suppliers and subcontractors, including these subcontractors. After the Kirklands had paid $51,011.76 and before construction was complete, Sidney Design abandoned the project and became bankrupt. Unpaid suppliers and subcontractors served notices of intention to file mechanic's liens on the property. The Kirklands sued to void the mechanic's liens. Cooperative Supply counterclaimed to establish a lien on the property for $17,570.55; Ready-Mix counterclaimed to establish a lien for $9,746.81; and Nelson counterclaimed to establish a lien for $2,030.00. After trial, the trial court allowed Cooperative Supply and Ready-Mix to amend their pleadings to include claims for unjust enrichment. Relying principally upon John Kirkland's testimony and a view of the premises, the trial court determined: (1) the parties did not agree to a price for Phase II different from the $45,000 estimated in the contract; (2) the subcontractors contracted with Sidney Design and had no contracts with the Kirklands; (3) John Kirkland did not agree to pay unpaid accounts of subcontractors beyond payments he made to Sidney Design; (4) Sidney Design failed to construct various items of the project in a workmanlike manner; (5) after Sidney Design abandoned the project, the Kirklands incurred costs of $84,524.21 in completing the project; and The trial court concluded: The judgment voided the mechanic's liens filed by Nelson, Cooperative Supply, and Ready-Mix and dismissed their claims against the Kirklands. On appeal, these subcontractors contend that the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, the trial court erred in its interpretation of the construction contract, erred in its application of the mechanic's lien statute, and erred in failing to find that Cooperative Supply and Ready-Mix were entitled to judgment on the basis of implied contract. *23 Our attention has not been drawn to any evidence leaving us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made in the findings of fact. The findings are, therefore, not clearly erroneous. We find no error in the trial court's interpretation of the construction contract. Our conclusion that the trial court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous disposes of the assertion that Cooperative Supply and Ready-Mix were entitled to judgment on the basis of implied contract. The only remaining issue is whether the trial court correctly applied the mechanic's lien statute. As amended in 1973 (S.L.1973, ch. 273, § 1), 1975 (S.L.1975, ch. 303, § 1), and 1979 (S.L.1979, ch. 385, § 1), § 35-27-02, N.D.C.C., now provides, in relevant part: The trial court found that the Kirklands had paid the full value of the improvements. Because the Kirklands had, therefore, paid the full value of the contributions of these subcontractors, the trial court correctly applied § 35-27-02, N.D. C.C., in holding that the liens filed by these subcontractors were void. The judgment is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., LEVINE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., and PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, concur. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, sitting in place of GIERKE, J., disqualified.