Opinion ID: 2463817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Corrected Lien Statement

Text: [¶ 14] Vision next contends that because the lien statutes provide no procedure for filing a corrected lien statement outside the 120-day period for filing the original lien statement, the Corrected Lien Statement should be stricken as a groundless lien. Again, the question that may be resolved under a subsection 311(b) proceeding is not whether the Corrected Lien Statement was a legally viable filing, but whether Lexstar knowingly filed a groundless lien statement, corrected or otherwise. We hold that the district court's finding that Lexstar did not knowingly file a groundless lien when it filed its Corrected Lien Statement is not clearly erroneous. [¶ 15] This Court has recognized that the failure to specify the correct dates in a lien statement is not necessarily fatal to the lien. We noted that 27 Cyc. Of Law & Proc., p. 201, stated: A mistake or inaccuracy in the statement as to a date is not necessarily fatal, if no one is misled thereby to his prejudice; nor would such mistake preclude the claimant, when necessary to sustain his lien, from showing the true date. Phelan v. Cheyenne Brick Co., 26 Wyo. 493, 506, 188 P. 354, 358 (Wyo.1920). Counsel for Lexstar testified the error in the original Lien Statement was a typographical error, he had a reasonable belief that Lexstar's claim to a lien was valid, and weekly draw requests detailing the basis for charges were sent to Vision throughout Lexstar's work on the project. In other words, Lexstar presented evidence that it had no knowledge its original typographical error was misleading or the correction of that error would prejudice Vision. [¶ 16] Importantly, the district court did not find, and we do not hold, that the question whether the date error may be corrected, through evidence at the foreclosure proceeding or through the Corrected Lien Statement, has been resolved. Whether the date error was misleading or prejudicial is a question for the lien foreclosure proceeding, not for a subsection 311(b) proceeding.
[¶ 17] Vision argues as an additional basis for striking both the original and corrected lien statements that neither contained a sufficiently detailed itemization of the amounts allegedly owed to Lexstar. The district court did not expressly address this ground other than to generally deny the relief requested and defer the issues raised by Vision to a future lien foreclosure proceeding. We agree that the issue of itemization is properly addressed in the foreclosure proceeding, and that adequacy of itemization is not a basis for a subsection 311(b) petition. We previously explained: Opportunity Knocks argues that Shannon Electric's lien statement contained a material misstatement and was therefore invalid as a matter of law because it only provided a skeletal list of the materials delivered and described the labor costs as approximately 100 hours without providing specific details regarding the materials delivered or who performed the labor, at what rate, or on what date the labor was performed, thereby violating Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-301(b)(iv). We conclude that a petition filed pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311(b) is not the appropriate method for testing the adequacy of a lien statement under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-301(b). That issue is more appropriately before the district court in the lien foreclosure action. As evidenced by its clear language, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311(b) provides a remedy for challenging certain liens against governmental officials, forged liens, and liens known at the time of filing to be groundless or false, or to contain material misstatements. The statute is not meant to be used beyond that purpose simply to test the adequacy of information supplied in a lien statement. Opportunity Knocks, ¶ 10, 236 P.3d at 259.
[¶ 18] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311(b) places the burden of proof on the lien claimant, not on the property owner. Opportunity Knocks, ¶ 8, 236 P.3d at 258. We therefore find that the district court erred in assigning the burden of proof to Vision. We conclude, however, that the erroneous assignment did not affect the outcome of the proceeding below. The district court's ruling was based on the evidence presented by the lien claimant, Lexstar, and on the failure of Vision to allege proper grounds for relief under § 29-1-311(b). [¶ 19] Affirmed.