Court Opinion

ID: 9781510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:50:07.65611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:27.477653
License: Public Domain

Justice BENDER,
dissenting.
A person asserting a lien claim for work performed upon, or laborers or materials provided for, two or more buildings, structures, or other improvements (properties) under the same contract must comply with one of the two alternative ways of filing such a lien under subsection 38-22-103(4), C.R.S. (2004), to perfect a valid lien. The claimant must either: (1) divide and apportion the value of the materials or laborers furnished for, or labor performed upon, the properties in proportion to the value received by each and file with the lien claim a statement of the amount so apportioned to each; or (2) where apportionment is not possible, file a blanket lien against all the properties involved for the entire cost or value owed. Because the lien filed by the Brickman Group failed to comply with either of these two statutory requirements, I conclude that Brickman’s lien is invalid and is therefore not entitled to equitable enforcement. Hence, I respectfully dissent.
Discussion
Brickman filed a single lien claim for the entire unpaid contractual balance against only some of the properties which benefited from its contract with the developer. The properties charged with its lien included nine units and the common areas of forty-eight benefited properties. Brickman’s lien did not divide and apportion the amount owed; it did not contain a statement of the amount apportioned to the properties liened; and it was asserted against only a portion of the properties benefited. Brickman’s lien thus was a “hybrid” lien because it complied with some, but not all, of the requirements of each alternative type of lien under subsection 38-22-103(4). Hence, this hybrid lien failed to satisfy the requirements of either statutory alternative.
Under subsection 38-22-103(4), when a person performs any labor upon, or furnishes laborers or materials for, two or more properties under the same contract, that person must either “divide and apportion [the value] among the [properties] in proportion to the value ... for each ... and ... file with his or her lien claim therefor a statement of the amount so apportioned to each,” or, “if the cost or value ... cannot be readily and definitely divided and apportioned ... then one lien claim may be made, established, and enforced against all such [properties].”
In my view, a claimant filing a lien for work performed upon, or laborers or materials furnished for, two or more properties under the same contract is required to corn-*962ply with one of these two alternatives to assert a valid, and thus enforceable, lien. Subsection 38-22-103(4) uses the discretionary term “may” and the permissive phrase “it is lawful” in describing these alternative means of filing a lien. However, the use of this discretionary language does not mean that a claimant is not required to comply with one of the two statutory alternatives. Instead, I read the permissive language in subsection (4) as allowing a claimant to choose which one of the two types of liens to assert. Hence, a claimant asserting a lien for work performed upon, or laborers or materials furnished for, two or more properties under the same contract must either divide and apportion and file a statement of the amount apportioned to the properties liened or assert the lien against all the properties involved.1
Treating subsection 38-22-103(4) as requiring a claimant to comply with one of these two alternatives is consistent with this court’s previous reading of this subsection as creating “requirements” for filing a valid lien. See Buerger Inv. Co. v. B.F. Salzer Lumber Co., 77 Colo. 401, 404, 237 P. 162, 164 (1925) (concluding that where claimant’s work “was to be done under one contract on all the houses, that is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of [predecessor to subsection 38-22-103(4) ] ... [w]e find no ... requirement except that there must be one contract for all the lots, and that the lien must be such as not to be readily and definitely apportioned ”) (emphasis added); Independent Trust Corp. v. Stan Miller, Inc., 796 P.2d 483, 488 (Colo.1990) (“ITC ”) (construing subsection 38-22-103(4) and quoting, with approval, from Buerger: “the claimant may apportion where possible; if impossible, he must spread his blanket [against all the properties]”) (emphasis added).
Further, the plain language of subsection 38-22-103(4) requires that a claimant comply with one of the two alternatives to assert a valid, and thus enforceable, lien. A lien claimant under the first alternative of subsection (4) must divide and apportion the value among the properties and file with the lien claim a statement of the amount apportioned to each property. Following this language, the next sentence of the subsection expressly conditions the enforcement of the lien on the claimant’s compliance with dividing and apportioning and filing a statement of the apportioned amount. This sentence states: “This lien claim when so filed may be enforced ...” (emphasis added). Thus, a lien asserted under this first alternative may be enforced only after the claimant first asserts a lien which complies with the statutory language of subsection (4). The majority reads out this statutory mandate by permitting enforcement even though no lien was “so filed” by Brickman.
Under the second alternative, where the cost or value is not readily divisible, a claimant must assert a lien against “all” the properties before that lien may be enforced. Subsection 38-22-103(4) provides that “one lien claim may be made, established, and enforced against all [the properties]” (emphasis added). The terms “made” and “established” refer to the creation, or bringing into existence, of a lien. See Webster’s New World College Dictionary 816, 465 (3rd ed.1996) (defining “make” as “to bring into a specified condition” and defining “establish” as “to cause to be or happen; bring about”). Based on the General Assembly’s use of words which describe the creation of a lien in the first instance, the legislature must have intended a valid lien be asserted against all the properties involved before that lien may be enforced. While in certain contexts this court has interpreted “and” to mean “or,” I do not believe that such an interpretation is appropriate here because of the specific terms used by the General Assembly, i.e., “made,” “established,” and “enforced,” and because of the specific placement of these terms in subsection (4). Both the General Assembly’s use of the past tense and its placement of the terms “made” and “established,” (terms referring to the creation and bringing into existence of a lien), before the term “enforced” indicate that the legislature intended that a lien be validly made against all the properties before it may be enforced. The order of the terms reflects the common principle that one must possess a legally *963cognizable right — in this case, a valid lien claim — before that right may be enforced. Thus, in this context, subsection (4) should be read as requiring that a valid lien be asserted against all the properties involved before such a lien may be enforced. See Everitt Lumber Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 660 P.2d 925, 926 (Colo.App.1983) (noting long history of Colorado courts requiring strict construction of those “statutory provisions upon which the right to the existence of the lien depends”).
In addition, a claimant asserting a lien under subsection 38-22-103(4) is required to comply with one of the two alternatives before its lien may be enforced because the requirements under this subsection pertain to perfecting the lien. To perfect a lien of any type, a claimant must comply with the requirements of section 38-22-109, C.R.S. (2004), the portion of the mechanics’ lien statute pertaining to perfection of a lien in general. See § 38-22-109(1) (“Any person wishing to use the provisions of this article shall file for record ... a statement containing [the requirements of subsections 38-22-109(l)(a) — (l)(d) ]”); 9 Stephen W. Seifert, Colorado Creditors’ Remedies — Debtors’ Relief § 4.33, at 214-16 (1990). The requirements for perfecting a lien under section 38-22-109 include, among others, that the claimant file both a “description of the property to be charged with the lien” (subsection 38-22-109(l)(c)) and a “statement of -the amount due or owing” the claimant (subsection 38-22-109(l)(d)).
To comply with both sections 38-22-109 and 38-22-103(4), a claimant asserting a lien under the first alternative of subsection 38-22-103(4) must file not only a “statement of the amount due,” but a “statement of the amount so apportioned” to each property. Because this requirement under subsection 38-22-103(4) corresponds to the requirement under subsection 38-22-109(l)(d) for filing a statement of the amount owed, but actually requires more specificity, i.e., an “apportioned” amount, I read the first alternative as creating a heightened requirement for perfecting those liens filed for work performed upon, or laborers or materials furnished for, two or more properties under the same contract.
Similarly, the “description of the property to be charged with the lien” requirement of section 38-22-109 corresponds to the requirement under subsection 38-22-103(4) that the claimant assert its lien against “all” the properties. A property description is adequate under section 38-22-109(l)(c) if it is “sufficient to identify” the property. See McIntire & Quiros of Colo., Inc. v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 40 Colo.App. 398, 401, 576 P.2d 1026, 1027 (1978). In requiring that a claimant assert its blanket lien against all the properties, subsection 38-22-103(4) not only requires that the claimant identify the properties charged but specifies which properties must be so identified, i.e., “all” of them. Again, because this statutory requirement under subsection 38-22-103(4) corresponds to, and is actually more specific than, the requirement under subsection 38-22-109(l)(c) for perfecting a lien in general, I believe that the second alternative of subsection 38-22-103(4) creates a heightened requirement for perfecting a lien for labor performed upon, or materials or laborers furnished for, two or more properties under the same contract.
Because compliance with one of the two álternatives is required for perfection of a lien under subsection 38-22-103(4), a lien which fails to so comply is necessarily invalid and therefore unenforceable. See Kalamath Inv. Co. v. Asphalt Paving Co., 153 Colo. 109, 114, 384 P.2d 938, 941 (1963) (“The existence of a [mechanics’] lien ... is not presumed ... [the claimant must] show that he has complied with all of the essential requirements of the statute under which he claims.” (quoting 57 C.J.S. Mechanics’ Liens § 308)); Everitt Lumber Co., 660 P.2d at 926 (determining lien to be unenforceable where claimant failed to strictly comply with statutory section for perfecting that lien); Sprague Inv. Co. v. Mouat Lumber & Inv. Co., 14 Colo.App. 107, 121, 60 P. 179, 184 (1899) (“The one who claims the lien must exactly observe the statute in initiating and perfecting his right.”). Accordingly, because Brick-man failed to comply with either alternative of subsection (4), I conclude that its lien is both invalid and unenforceable.
Although the majority admits that Brick-man failed to assert its lien against all the *964properties involved and failed to divide and apportion, see maj. op. at 959, the majority, citing Buerger, applies equitable principles to enforce the lien. While I agree with the majority that Colorado courts have long applied equitable principles to construe liberally the mechanics’ lien statutes in favor of lien claimants, see maj. op. at 958, this liberal construction of the statute has not been applied across the board and, in my view, is not appropriate here because Brickman failed to perfect a valid lien. See Schneider v. J.W. Metz Lumber Co., 715 P.2d 329, 332 (Colo.1986) (“Colorado courts have long held that the mechanics’ lien statute [is in] derogation of the common law [and] is to be strictly construed in determining who is entitled to a lien.”); Brannan Sand & Gravel Co. v. F.D.I.C., 928 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Colo.App.1996) (“The mechanics’ lien statute is to be strictly construed with respect to those acts necessary to perfect the lien and liberally construed with respect to the benefits accorded a properly perfected lien.”), rev’d on other grounds,2 Because a mechanics’ lien is a creature of statute, see ITC, 796 P.2d at 487, the equitable enforcement of such a lien is appropriate only where it is first determined that the lien claim was made in accordance with the statutory language which created the right to assert that lien in the first place.
Neither Buerger nor the plain language of subsection 38-22-103(4) supports the majority’s equitable enforcement of Briekman’s lien. In Buerger, the court first determined that the claimant’s blanket lien was valid before it considered whether equitable apportionment was appropriate. 77 Colo. at 406, 237 P. at 164 (stating, “[I]t was sold for one purpose, on one contract, on one set of buildings .... That permits one lien.”) (emphasis added).3
Further, equitable enforcement of Brick-man’s lien is not appropriate because, unlike the claimant in Buerger, Brickman did not make a “good faith” choice of apportioning or filing a blanket lien but, rather, failed to comply with the express statutory requirements applicable to either alternative.4 In my view, Brickman’s non-compliance with express statutory language cannot be interpreted as a “good faith” attempt to assert a valid lien. Under these circumstances, I believe this court should not apply equitable principles to construe the mechanics’ lien statute in favor of the lien claimant. See Salzman v. Bachrach, 996 P.2d 1263, 1269 (Colo.2000) (describing, in general, the doctrine that “one who seeks equity must do equity”).5 Any inequities which may thus result to Brickman from my interpretation of the statute stem from its own failure to adhere to the express statutory language for asserting its lien.6
*965In addition, I note that the majority’s holding makes superfluous the express requirement under subsection 38-22-103(4) that the claimant file a statement of the amount apportioned with his or her lien claim. Brick-man failed to divide and apportion the value owed and failed to file a statement of an amount apportioned to each property. By directing the trial court to equitably apportion this lien, the majority makes superfluous the express statutory requirement that a statement of the amount apportioned be filed at the time the claimant initially files its lien.7 In other words, the court is performing the task the legislature specifically directed the claimant to do. I would avoid such a statutory construction. See Widder v. Durango Sch. Dist. No. 9-R, 85 P.3d 518, 532 (Colo.2004) (interpretations rendering a statutory provision superfluous should be avoided). Hence, I respectfully dissent.

. In stating that the blanket lien must be asserted against "all" the properties, the lien need not be filed against those properties, if any, which were already released by the claimant.

. See also Powder Mtn. Painting v. Peregrine Joint Venture, 899 P.2d 279, 281 (Colo.App.1994); Richter Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Rademacher, 729 P.2d 1009, 1012 (Colo.App.1986) (mechanics' lien statute is to be "strictly construed in determining whether the right to a lien exists").

. See also ITC, 796 P.2d at 485 n. 2 (before considering enforcement of mechanics’ liens, this court noted the trial court's determinations regarding the validity of the liens: “[The mechanic] had a valid mechanics’ lien in the principal amount of ...” (emphasis added).).

. In Buerger, the court concluded that where the claimant had chosen in "good faith” to file a blanket lien against all the unreleased properties and had "ma[d]e his statement so," he should not lose his entire lien even if it "turn[ed] out” that an apportionment was possible and equitable to all parties. 77 Colo. at 407, 237 P. at 165; see also ITC, 796 P.2d at 488 (quoting "good faith” choice of claimant to apportion or file blanket lien against all properties). Unlike the circumstances here, Buerger thus concerned the enforcement of a lien claim which was asserted in "good faith” and was initially, at least, filed in compliance with the statutory requirements of the predecessor to subsection 38-22-103(4).

. For these same reasons, I disagree with the majority's characterization of Brickman’s improperly asserted blanket lien as being a "misplay.” See maj. op. at 958 n. 2. Filing a lien while not complying with the express statutory requirements for creating and perfecting that lien is not a misplay but, rather, a violation of express statutory language.

. I also note that under Buerger, equitable apportionment should only be allowed where the court "deems it equitable to all parties.” 77 Colo. at 407, 237 P. at 165 (emphasis added). Where a claimant files a lien against only selected properties for the entire amount owed, it seems inequitable to the selected properties' owners, who are effectively forced to defend themselves against the lien claim for the entire unpaid amount, for the court to equitably enforce the lien for the benefit of the lien claimant who failed to comply with the express statutory language for asserting that lien in the first instance.

. Again, the court in Buerger allowed for equitable apportionment where the claimant had at least made a "good faith” choice to assert a blanket lien and had complied with the statutory language of former subsection 38-22-103(4) for asserting that type of lien.