Opinion ID: 2516776
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The extent of the lien

Text: In her final judgment, Judge Hunt recognized M-B and Tope as having mechanic's liens on the entire Jonesville coal mine site. Nerox Power argues that mechanic's liens only attach to the specific location at which the hired machinery was used and that because M-B and Tope did not identify the specific locations where their machinery was used, their mechanic's liens cannot extend to the entire lease site. Nerox Power urges that this interpretation is required by the language in AS 34.35.055(a). [37] However, the statute does not require so narrow an interpretation. Although the determination of who qualifies as a lienholder is strictly construed, the intent and purpose of lien laws are to be liberally construed. [38] In the present situation, M-B and Tope supplied equipment for use on the mining site. Nerox Power admits that the equipment was used on the mining site. The granting of a lien contemplates not just the physical area in which a contractor worked but also the monetary costs the contractor incurred. [39] M-B and Tope were contracted to provide equipment for the purpose of developing the entire mine site, not just a portion of it. As such, their liens should extend to the entire mine site. [40] The fact that construction was so incomplete as to make it difficult or perhaps impossible to determine the precise location or locations at which their equipment was used does not deprive M-B and Tope of recovery.