Court Opinion

ID: 9779415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:50:12.340052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.249278
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, concurring. The majority opinion is correct in stating that the failure to comply with the notice requirement of Act 746 of 1979 had no effect on Mr. Ellison’s rights established in his contract with Mr. Tubb. There was no need for the trial court to consider whether the contract was severable, and thus there is no need for us to consider it. The issue the appellant should have addressed is whether any constitutional provision or other law prevents the notice requirement from taking effect with respect to materials furnished on a job begun before the law went into effect. To the extent Ellison may have a lien, it is created by statute and not by his contract with Tubb. The basis of the materialman’s lien claim is Ark. Code Ann. § 18-44-101(a) (1987). I find nothing in that statute indicating that a lien which may accrue at the beginning of any particular job, contract, or project, is “unseverable.” In pertinent part the statute provides, “Every . . . person . . . who shall. . . furnish any material. . .for any building . . . under any . . . contract with the owner . . . or his . . . contractor . . . upon complying with the provisions of this subchapter, shall have, for his . . . materials . . . furnished, a lien upon the building . . . and upon the land belonging to the owner. . . .” The “provisions of this subchapter” were changed by Act 746, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 18-44-115(a) (1987), and thus, in my view, compliance with that section was necessary with respect to “any material” furnished after it became the law. I fully concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, but I would delete the discussions of the singleness of the contract and impairment of contract, as I find them unnecessary.