Court Opinion

ID: 9545176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:50.198051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:15.349115
License: Public Domain

McINTYRE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The only fault I find with the opinion of Justice Parker is that it does not give sufficient recognition to the provisions of § 29-6, W.S.1957. The section reads:
“The lien for the things or materials furnished or work and labor performed shall attach to the building, erection or improvements for which they were furnished, or the work and labor was done, in preference to any prior lien or in-cumbrance or mortgage upon the land upon which said building, or erection, improvements or machinery have been erected or put, and any person enforcing such lien may have such building, erection or improvements sold under execution, and the purchaser thereof may remove the same within a reasonable time thereafter.”
It is clear from the foregoing section that the contractor can claim no lien against the land. If a completely new building were constructed, there would be no problem. The case of Schulenberg v. Hayden, 146 Mo. 583, 48 S.W. 472, 474, cited in the majority opinion, would apply and the contractor could remove the building without depreciating the security of a prior lien holder.
But what is the situation where only repairs and improvements are added to existing structures? Section 29-6 says the contractor’s lien shall attach to the “building, erection or improvements” in preference to prior liens. It also says the contractor may have such “building, erection or improvements” sold under execution and the purchaser may remove the same.
The plaintiff should, if practical to do so, be able to remove the improvements added by him. If such removal is not *197practical, there should be some kind of balancing of equity.
The record discloses that plaintiff actually did plead a cause of action based on unjust enrichment. The findings and holdings of the trial court were such, however, that it was not necessary to pass on that cause of action.
If we reverse the judgment of the district court, which held the plaintiff-contractor had a lien, then we should remand the case for trial on the issue of unjust enrichment.