Court Opinion

ID: 9581392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:29.327604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:54.911217
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result reached in the main opinion but do not think it is necessary to-place my concurrence upon the grounds given therein. In my opinion, an architect can have no lien upon land when no. building is erected thereon.
Section 38-1-3, U.C.A.1953, as set out in the main opinion provides that certain persons therein specified shall have a lien upon the property upon or concerning which they have rendered service, etc. All alike are given liens, and all liens are upon equal footing (Sec. 38-1-10, U.C.A.1953) regardless of the time when the work was performed.
By Sec. 38-1-4, U.C.A.1953, the extent of the liens (including those for architects) is set out as follows :
The liens granted by this chapter shall extend to and cover so much of the land whereon such building, structure or improvement shall be made as may be necessary for the convenient use and occupation thereof, * * *.
I know of no case where a lien has been granted when there was no improvement to *402the land, and none to the contrary is cited in the main opinion or in the briefs of counsel.
By Sec. 38-1-5, U.C.A.1953, all liens are given a priority as of the time when work was first done or material furnished on the ground for the improvement. Since in this case there never was any work done on the ground nor material furnished on the ground for the structure, there would be no effective date for the lien of the architect, even if he had one.
The general law is stated in 57 C.J.S. Mechanics’ Liens § 36, page 530, to be:
* * * While there is some authority holding that he may acquire a lien even though his plans and specifications are not used, ordinarily no lien may be allowed for plans and specifications not used. * * *
See also annotation in 60 A.L.R. at page 1270.
That which does not become a part of the realty is generally considered as not giving any rights to a lien under the statutes. See 36 Am.Jur., Mechanics’ Liens § 351. For example, there is no mechanic’s lien available to one who furnishes or installs trade fixtures which are not installed as a part of the construction or improvement of a building, and this is so for the reason that trade fixtures remain personalty and do not become a part of the realty. See annotation in Ann.Cas.1912B at page 20 and 42 Am.S.R. at page 796.
Our statute gives the lien only for material furnished and work done in the construction, alteration, or addition to or repair of any building, struchire, or improvement upon land. See Frehner v. Morton, 18 Utah 2d 422, 424 P.2d 446 (1967).
The plans and specifications of an architect are a service rendered for the benefit of the building only, and they in no wise enhance the value of the land unless the building is constructed.
The purpose of the statute is primarily to protect those who have added directly to the value of real property by performing labor or furnishing material upon it. See Stanton Transportation Co. v. Davis, 9 Utah 2d 184, 341 P.2d 207 (1959). It is to prevent the contracting owner of an interest in land from taking the benefit of improvements placed thereon without paying for labor and material that went into it. See King Bros., Inc. v. Utah Dry Kiln Co., 13 Utah 2d 339, 374 P.2d 254 (1962).
By the contract between the architect and Artcol Corporation, the plans and specifications remain the property of the architect whether the building is constructed or not. Here the architect tries to get full pay for his plans and specifications of which he and he alone claims full ownership.
In this case the drawing of plans and specifications would not enhance the value *403of the land unless there was construction of an improvement thereon. When the plans and specifications are brought to fruition, then the land is benefited as much by the architect’s preliminary work as it is by the labor and materials actually furnished in the erection of the building pursuant to the plans and specifications.
The Supreme Court of Washington in the case of Lipscomb v. Exchange Nat. Bank of Spokane, 80 Wash. 296, 141 P. 686, 688 (1914), stated:
* * * It is not the rule that an architect who prepares plans and specifications for a building which is not erected may claim a lien for such services upon the land on which it was contemplated erecting the building. The law contemplates that the lien is to attach to the building, and upon only so much of the land as may be necessary for its use and occupation. In other words, the lien attaches to property which the service has aided in producing. Where, therefore the building contemplated has not been erected, no lien for the architect’s services in drawing plans can attach to specific property. [Citations omitted.]
It followed, therefore, that the trial court erred in holding that the architect had a lien upon the land.
Since the respondent had no lien at all, I do not think it was necessary to discuss the other matters covered in the prevailing opinion.