Opinion ID: 1730429
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of filing one statement without allocating the materials to each building.

Text: Linda and First Federal claim on appeal, as they did at trial, that Alabama law requires Bird to have segregated the materials he supplied according to the buildings improved thereby before he filed his lien statement. Appellants rely chiefly on College Court Realty Co. v. J. C. Letcher Lumber Co., 201 Ala. 362, 78 So. 218 (1917), and on Richardson Lumber Co. v. Howell, 219 Ala. 328, 122 So. 343 (1929). In each of these cases the defendant property owner's challenge to the materialman's lien was that the contract had not specified which items supplied were placed in each building. This court held in both cases that the lien was not defeated by this lack of specificity in the contract. It is sufficient if [the amount that is to go into each house or lot] is ascertained before the lien or claim therefor is filed in the probate court, College Court, supra, 201 Ala. at 363, 78 So. 218. This court allowed plaintiffs in these cases to proceed with actions on their liens. Although the cases might be read as indicating that a lien claimant must separate charges among buildings before filing his statement of lien, we believe that they can also be read to hold that an initial claim for the amount due on a contract in an aggregate amount is not objectionable where the amount allocated to each improvement is determined in time to prevent prejudice to the defendant. In Richardson, supra, this court noted that The defendants had the right, when sued, to demand a list of the items composing the sum sought to be collected, and were thereby protected from surprise when the proof was offered as to the respective houses, lots, and materials furnished for the improvements thereon. 219 Ala. at 330, 122 So. 343. This lack of surprise is even more the case where, as here, the property owner has had the materials supplied directly to himself as builder. First Federal argues that neither of the mortgagees could have looked at the verified statement of lien or the complaint and determined how much money would have been required to secure the release of the property on which they held a mortgage. We do not see this as a substantial objection, because the mortgagees could have had discovery upon either plaintiff materialman or their co-defendant mortgagor. Finally, [t]he decree of the court would necessarily conform to the rulings here that only material that went into a particular house was charged as a lien thereon ..., Richardson, supra, 219 Ala. at 330, 122 So. 343. We hold, therefore, that the trial court committed no reversible error when it found, in accordance with evidence adduced at trial, the value of the materials supplied to each building. The lien statement itself is good because it so closely follows the Code form when it says This lien is claimed, separately, severally and jointly, as to both the above specified 3 acres or less of land and the above specified buildings and improvements situated upon the above described 20 acres, more or less, of land. [Emphasis added.] Cf. Code 1975, § 35-11-213