Court Opinion

ID: 7817628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:41:36.206089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:38.696375
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority because I do not feel that the notice to the property owners was in substantial compliance with the lien statutes. The deficiency was in the failure to state from whom the amount claimed was due. The notice was directed to both the owners and the contractor. There is no language from which the recipient of this notice could ascertain whether appellant contended that the amount was due from the owners or the contractor. This is important because, in addition to a lien on the property, appellant was entitled to personal judgment against one or the other, htft not both. If the amount was alleged to be due from the contractor, then the owners could call upon him and the sureties on any performance bond to protect their property from the lien. It would have been necessary for them to have proceeded promptly in this regard in order to hold a surety. The stage of construction at the time of the notice is not apparent, nor is there any indication whether final settlement between the owners and general contractor had been made. If it had not, but was imminent, then it was necessary for the owners to be clearly advised as to whom the liability was asserted against in order to adequately protect themselves in these dealings. The contention of appellant in the trial court was based entirely on an alleged contract with the owners, not the general contractor. Now he asserts that his notice was sufficient to advise the owners that he was claiming that the amount was due from the contractor, the trial court having held that the contract was with the contractor, not the owners. Thus, he has pointed up the significance of the statutory requirement that the notice state from whom the amount is claimed to be due. I agree with the majority in the distinction made as to strict and liberal construction of these lien statutes, but I fear its absorption in this salutary effort has obscured the real issue in this case. While the majority opinion states that the notice apprised the owners of certain facts, it is nowhere pointed out how the owners were advised from whom the amount was due. The majority opinion has, in effect, wiped the words “.and from whom the same is due” from the statute — a prerogative which is not ours. In Scott v. LeGrande, 225 Ark. 1022, 287 S. W. 2d 456, this court said that a notice was defective because it did not set forth in the notice “the amount claimed and from whom the same is due.” This is a rule of property which should not be departed from so effortlessly. I therefore respectfully dissent. I would affirm the decree of the lower court. I am authorized to state that Byrd, J., joins in this dissent.