Opinion ID: 2612545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the materialman's lien in suit is governed by the limitations period in force when lien statement was filed

Text: When the lien statement, with promissory note attached to it, was filed, statutory law then in effect, 42 O.S. 1971 § 172, provided in pertinent part: Any lien provided for by this Chapter may be enforced by civil action in the District Court of the County in which the land is situated, and such action shall be brought within one (1) year from the time of the filing of said lien with the Clerk of said Court: provided, that where a promissory note is given, and said note or a copy thereof is filed and made a part of the lien statement at the time said statement is filed, such action may be brought at any time within one year from the maturity of said note.    [Emphasis added]. The 1977 amendment of § 172 [1] is silent with respect to its effect upon filed lien statements with unmatured promissory notes attached. [2] The Bank argues that the amendatory act applies here to the materialman's claim in suit. The one-year statute of limitations, the Bank urges, began to run against the lien claim the moment the new statute became effective and had expired when the cross-claim against homeowners came to be filed. [3] We find the argument untenable. Art. 5 § 54, Okl. Const., provides that: The repeal of a statute shall not revive a statute previously repealed by such statute, nor shall such repeal affect any accrued right, or penalty incurred, or proceedings begun by virtue of such repealed statute.  [Emphasis added]. The quoted provisions of our fundamental law protect from legislative extinguishment accrued interests acquired or proceedings begun under a repealed or amended statute. [4] The term proceedings begun refers to essential steps or measures to invoke, establish or vindicate a right. [5] Within the meaning of § 54, the phrase proceedings begun most surely embraces all of the statutory steps required by law for the establishment and foreclosure of a statutory lien claim. [6] Timely filing of a lien statement is necessary to impress a materialman's lien. It is a condition precedent to a foreclosure. [7] It is indeed the first critical step in the proceedings begun. The Bank contends that the post-1977 version of § 172  which makes foreclosure suits subject to a one-year limitation  applies to the instant case. The changes made by the amendment, we are told, were merely procedural and hence the limitations period in force when the present action was commenced must control here. We are urged that since statutes of limitation are matters of procedure and not of substantive rights, they may be given retrospective effect. The Bank's position, if adopted, would shift the focus of our inquiry from the protections afforded by Art. 5 § 54, Okl. Const., to a mechanistic application of the right/remedy dichotomy. The pre-foreclosure period  afforded the lienholder by the provisions of 42 O.S. 1971 § 172  during which the lien, once filed, could be kept impressed on the homeowners' property by the terms of the unmatured note attached to the statement, was an integral ingredient of the accrued right which is here constitutionally shielded from invasion by after-enacted legislation. A filed lien statement doubtless constitutes an accrued right that is postured in the status of proceedings begun. The interest, once created, may not be disturbed by subsequently-enacted legislation. [8] A mechanic's or materialman's lien is purely statutory. [9] The time limitations provided in § 172 for its enforcement by foreclosure is part and parcel of the right itself. [10] Although the claim attaches with the filing of the statement, [11] the lien remains more or less inchoate until its timely enforcement by foreclosure. [12] But it is at the point of its filing that  in the sense of Art. 5, § 54, Okl. Const.  one's right in the property of another does become accrued and the proceedings [for its perfection are] begun. Before the enactment of the 1977 amendment, the 1973 lien statement here in foreclosure rose to the status of an accrued right that stood postured in proceedings begun. It is hence within the ambit of protection afforded by Art. 5, § 54, Okl. Const.