Court Opinion

ID: 9850322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:55:21.897097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:35.237478
License: Public Domain

DONLIN, J.
(concurring). I agree that plaintiffs do not have a lien against the property. However, I would distinguish Mueller v. Novelty Dye Works, 273 Wis. 501, 78 N.W.2d 881 (1956) on legal grounds in addition to factual differences. -
Mueller involved the lien of a judgment creditor under sec. 270.79 (now sec. 806.15), Stats., while here we are presented with a claim for a construction lien under sec. 289.01 (3), Stats. The construction lien claimant has personal contact with the property while the judgment creditor generally is a stranger to the property.
The lien claimant must satisfy very specific notice requirements to perfect a construction lien while the judgment creditor, once he has received a judgment, can *125docket it in any county of the state. The construction lien claimant has a potential claim only against specific property and must enforce such claim within two years of the date of its filing. The judgment creditor has a lien against any and all real property the debtor has • or acquires in the county of docketing within ten years of the entry of judgment. These differences are substantial. The legislature intended to create two different types of liens.
In addition, having close contact with the property involved, the lien claimant has every opportunity to make inquiry as to the true ownership of the property. He is dealing with someone on the property who has an apparent claim of ownership. All he need do is ask what the claim of ownership is and verify the information received. One manner of verification is to examine the records in the office of the Register of Deeds to determine the record ownership of the property involved. As a practical matter, the lien claimant should cheek these records to assure that statutory notices are sent to the “owners” of the property. See W. B. Raushenbush, Wisconsin Construction Lien Law — 197U, problem 3 at 29, problem 4 at 36, and ch. 7 at 241 (1975).
Furthermore, there are serious practical problems in allowing a construction lien claimant to enforce a lien of this type against the real property. If this lien did attach, when would a title examiner be certain that there were no liens which could attach? Title examination in Wisconsin may be going the way of the quill pen, but title insurers either except construction lien claims from their coverage or require waivers of such claims. In this case, there is no showing that the lien claimant ever had any contact with or was known by the landowner until this action was commenced. In these situations, how could a landowner as seller execute a valid affidavit of no lien claims?
*126To allow construction liens to attach to buyers’ interests in purchase contracts might well undermine the integrity of titles to real estate. Diligent lien claimants have the ability to take precautions to protect their interests. Under these circumstances, to accept plaintiffs’ construction of “owners of any interest in land” would clearly be contrary to the intent of the legislature.