Court Opinion

ID: 9738167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:45.688783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.086378
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The trial court held that:
The Plaintiff’s Lien is invalid and thus its Complaint insofar as it seeks a foreclosure must be denied. However, it will stand to the extent that the Complaint demands Judgment against Defendants, Clair F. Wieseler, AJH, Inc., and Alex Group.
*154If it is valid for judgment purposes, why isn’t it valid for mechanic’s lien purposes?
In Ringgenberg v. Wilmsmeyer, 253 N.W.2d 197 (S.D.1977), this court held that: “ ‘Where the work is contracted for as an entirety for a specific amount, ... all the information is given that is needed or can reasonably be required.’ ” Id. at 201, quoting Taylor v. Netherwood, 91 Va. 88, 20 S.E. 888, 890 (1895). Here, the plaintiff agreed to do certain work: supply and install plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for a specific price. Plaintiff’s contract was based on a lump sum rather than on a time and materials basis. It described the work (as above) and the price ($25,615). Therefore, no more particular itemization was necessary.
The Ringgenberg holding — that a detailed itemization is not necessary when the parties contract to do an entire job at a certain price — is consistent with case law from other jurisdictions. Many courts have ruled that where work was done or materials furnished under an entire contract to do or furnish materials for a gross sum, it is not necessary for the claimant to itemize his account in lien statements. See, e.g., In Re Groff, 624 F.2d 133 (10th Cir.1980); Mebane Lumber Co. v. Avery & Bullock Builders, Inc., 270 N.C. 337, 154 S.E.2d 665 (1967); Giansante v. Pascuzzo, 205 Pa.Super. 28, 206 A.2d 340 (1965); Application of Lawrence Arms, Inc., 37 Misc.2d 396, 234 N.Y.S.2d 783 (1962); Wadsworth Homes, Inc. v. Woodridge Corp., 358 S.W.2d 288 (Mo.App.1962); Mississippi Woodworking Co. v. Maher, 273 S.W.2d 753 (Mo.App.1954); Minnesota Home Rebuilding & Repair Co. v. Kraulik, 243 Minn. 312, 67 N.W.2d 673 (1954); 57 C.J.S. Mechanic’s Liens § 165, at 705 (1948) and cases cited therein.
It seems to me that the majority is taking a view too strict in distinguishing Ring-genberg. The trial court and the majority seem to be punishing the mechanic’s lien claimant for putting too much information (surplusage) into its lien. It also seems to me that the majority is confusing validity with priority. This mechanic’s lien is valid under Ringgenberg because it described the work and the price, but its priority remains inferior or subordinate to all prior incumbrances.