BIANTRAV CONTRACTOR LLC v. CONDREN
2020 OK 73
Okla.2020Background
- Petitioner Biantrav Contractor LLC filed a Corrected and Amended Mechanics and Materialmen's Lien (increasing the amount claimed) on December 20, 2019.
- The Rogers County District Court (Judge Condren) entered a July 14, 2020 Journal Entry finding that amended lien ineffective. Petitioner sought original jurisdiction review and a writ of prohibition.
- Statutory framework: 42 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 143 requires subcontractor liens to be filed within 90 days of last furnishing material or labor and specifies required contents; 42 O.S. 2011 § 172 governs enforcement actions and allows amendment of lien statements "except as to the amount claimed."
- The core dispute: whether § 172 bars amendment increasing the claimed amount once a civil enforcement action exists, even if the amended lien was filed within the 90-day window of § 143.
- The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, granted the writ of prohibition, and enjoined enforcement of the district court’s judgment that the amended lien was ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 O.S. 2011 § 172 prohibits amending a lien as to amount claimed when the amended lien is filed within the 90‑day period of § 143 | Biantrav: Amendment increasing amount is valid because it was filed within § 143’s 90‑day period; § 172 does not bar such amendments when timely filed | Respondent/Real parties: § 172 bars amendments as to amount claimed in an enforcement action, so the amended amount is ineffective | Court: § 172 does not prohibit amending the amount if the amended lien statement was filed within the 90‑day period of § 143; § 172’s limits apply chiefly to post‑statute technical corrections in enforcement actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Peterson, 126 P.3d 1232 (2005) (original jurisdiction may be assumed when decision rests on erroneous conclusion of law)
- Cannon v. Lane, 867 P.2d 1235 (1993) (writ appropriate where public interest warrants)
- Whitfield v. Frensley Bros. Lbr. Co., 283 P. 985 (1930) (lien statements in enforcement actions are pleadings that may be amended)
- El Reno Elec. Light & Tel. Co. v. Jennison, 50 P. 144 (1897) (owner exempt from suit by original contractor during subcontractor filing period)
- Davidson Oil Country Supply Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Equip. Co., 689 P.2d 1279 (1984) (purpose of lien statute is to protect subcontractors and give owners notice)