Court Opinion

ID: 9531786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:29.040054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:34.971516
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
concurring: I agree with the resolution of this case as set forth in the majority opinion. I would urge, however, that *353the case of Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707 (1965), should not only be distinguished, but it should be overruled. In Ekstrom, Justice Fontron in his dissenting opinion points out that the court has adopted a technical viewpoint, unsupported by our prior decisions, and that the lien statement is, in his view, adequate. I agree. Our lien statute, K.S.A. 60-1102, merely requires that the lien statement be verified. It does not require that the authority of the person verifying the lien be stated. The general rule, which I believe to be just and which we should follow, is set forth in 57 C.J.S., Mechanics’ Liens § 167 d(l), p. 712, as follows:
“Where the verification is made by a person other than claimant, it is perhaps usual to state the relation which affiant bears to claimant; but, unless so required by statute, it is not necessary that the affidavit of verification shall state that affiant is the agent of claimant or that he makes the verification in behalf of claimant.”
The authority of the person signing the lien statement and verifying it on behalf of the claimant is a matter of proof. It can be established — or successfully challenged — at trial. The statute merely requires that the lien statement be verified. Ekstrom has added another requirement, one not included in the lien statute by the legislature. This lays a trap for the unwary supplier of labor or materials. Our ultimate goal is to do justice. We should not permit the potential defeat of meritorious claims because of some minor and unnecessary court-imposed technicality.
Ekstrom should be overruled.
Prager and Herd, JJ., join the foregoing concurring opinion.