Bates v. Chicago Lumber Co. of Omaha
2016 WY 58
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Bates hired Anderson to build a home; Anderson kept an open master account with Century Lumber and opened a Bates subaccount. Century first supplied materials Oct. 15, 2010.
- Bates paid Anderson $249,800; Anderson made generic payments to Century that Century applied to oldest charges, leaving the Bates subaccount delinquent ($42,194.56 by July 1, 2011).
- Century warned Anderson, cut Anderson off for credit July 1, 2011, then sent notices of lien liability and intent beginning July 22, 2011; Century recorded a Statement of Lien Dec. 23, 2011 and sued to foreclose June 18, 2012.
- District court granted partial summary judgment finding the home was substantially complete in July 2011 but concluded Century’s lien was timely because materials were later supplied under an "overarching contract;" it also disallowed contract-based interest in the lien amount.
- On appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court considered timeliness under the pre-2010 version of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-2-106(a) (applicable here) and reversed, holding the lien was untimely as a matter of law because the earlier substantial-completion date triggered the filing period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Century) | Defendant's Argument (Bates) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of lien filing under § 29-2-106(a) | Lien timely because Century supplied materials after substantial completion and under one "overarching contract," so later supply restarted filing period | Lien untimely because substantial completion occurred July 2011 and lien statement (Dec. 23, 2011) was filed beyond 90 days | Reversed: under pre-2010 statute the earlier date (substantial completion) controls; lien untimely as a matter of law |
| Whether materials supplied for cash after cutoff restart lien period | Century argued later cash and credit supplies show continuous furnishing under contract | Bates argued cash sales cannot support lien because no debt created; substantial completion date controls | Court noted cash sales likely not lienable and, regardless, statute requires earlier date; did not rely on cash-sales theory to save lien |
| Inclusion of non-lienable items in recorded lien (false/frivolous lien) | Century amended lien to include only materials for Bates project; no intent to file false lien | Bates argued inclusion of nonlienable charges made lien false/frivolous | District court found amendment removed false items and no evidence of frivolous/false lien; appellate decision did not overturn that factual finding |
| Recovery of contract-based interest in lien amount | Century sought contract interest shown on invoices | Bates argued lien statutes limit recovery to "material furnished" and exclude contract interest | District court disallowed contractual interest from lien; appellate opinion did not reverse that legal conclusion in the portion deciding timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Goforth v. Fifield, 352 P.3d 242 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for reviewing trial-court factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman, 226 P.3d 889 (Wyo. 2010) (appellate review standards cited)
- Harignordoguy v. Barlow, 313 P.3d 1265 (Wyo. 2013) (presumption of regularity when no trial transcript provided)
- Walker v. Walker, 311 P.3d 170 (Wyo. 2013) (review for legal error on face of record)
- Powder River Basin Res. Council v. Wyo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 320 P.3d 222 (Wyo. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Moncrief v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 856 P.2d 440 (Wyo. 1993) (subsequent legislative amendments can clarify prior ambiguity)
- McTiernan v. Jellis, 316 P.3d 1153 (Wyo. 2013) (rules on strict construction of lien statutes)
- Mewson-Peterson Lumber Co. v. Sprinkle, 140 P.2d 588 (Wyo. 1943) (lien requires underlying debt; cash sales typically not lienable)