Opinion ID: 885350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Gordon Burns' lien was timely filed.

Text: ¶ 14 The Burnses argue that the District Court's finding that Gordon Burns did not timely file his lien is clearly erroneous. The Burnses assert that Gordon Burns provided materials in the form of tools to the motel after December 31, 1995, thereby bringing him within the scope of § 71-3-535, MCA's requirement that a lien be filed not later than 90 days after the final furnishing of services or materials. Section 71-3-535, MCA. The Burnses also assert that the evidence they presented shifted the burden of persuasion to the Partnership and that the Partnership failed to present a shred of evidence to defeat the claims of any of the Appellants. ¶ 15 The Partnership responds that the District Court's finding that Gordon was terminated from his employment on December 1, 1995 and that he performed no additional repair and maintenance services thereafter is supported by Gordon's own testimony. Further, the Partnership argues that Gordon did not leave tools with the motel pursuant to his agreement with Keating. ¶ 16 We conclude that substantial credible evidence supports the District Court's finding that Gordon failed to timely file his construction lien. Gordon testified that he last provided services to Keating on December 13, 1995. On redirect, Gordon's counsel asked him why the December 31st date is stated in the notice of lien as the last day? Gordon responded that [t]hey [staff at the motel] were still using some of my tools up until that date. In fact, beyond that date. On cross-examination, however, Gordon conceded that his services had been terminated before December 31, 1995 and that he had no agreement with Keating to be paid for the use of his tools after his services were terminated: Q. Was it [leaving tools at the motel] gratuitous on your part? A. No. Q. So what were you going to be paid? A. I couldn't decide on that. Q. Did you talk to Mr. Keating about it? A. No, Mr. Keating had his hands full at that time. . . . . Q. Okay. Now, did you have a new agreement with him as to what he'd pay you for your tools? A. No. Gordon testified further that he told Stolp, but not Keating, that he was leaving tools on the premises. ¶ 17 Thus, Gordon's own testimony established that he ceased providing services to the motel well before December 31, 1995, a critical date for purposes of § 71-3-535, MCA's ninety-day requirement because Gordon's lien was filed on April 1, 1996. Further, Gordon testified that he did not leave tools on the premises of the motel pursuant to his agreement with Keating. We therefore reject the Burnses' contention that the tools Gordon left at the motel were a final furnishing of services or materials pursuant to the contract [with Keating] under which the lien ar[ose]. Section 71-3-535, MCA. We hold that the District Court did not err in finding that Gordon's construction lien was not timely filed and in concluding that he did not have a valid lien.