BIANTRAV CONTRACTOR LLC v. CONDREN
489 P.3d 522
Okla.2020Background
- Petitioner Biantrav Contractor, LLC filed a Corrected and Amended Mechanics and Materialmen's Lien (increasing the claimed amount) on December 20, 2019.
- The Rogers County district judge entered a July 14, 2020 Journal Entry of Judgment finding that amended lien ineffective. Biantrav sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- Oklahoma law (42 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 143) requires subcontractor liens to be filed with the county clerk within 90 days after materials or labor were last furnished and specifies required contents of the lien statement.
- 42 O.S. 2011 § 172 governs enforcement actions on liens and provides that a lien statement may be amended by leave of court “in furtherance of justice,” with an express statutory phrase excepting amendments as to the amount claimed.
- The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, granted the writ of prohibition, and prohibited the district judge (and any assigned judge) from enforcing the journal entry that declared the amended lien ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §172 bars filing an amended lien that increases the amount when the amendment is filed within the §143 90‑day filing period | Biantrav: §172 does not bar amendments to amount if filed within the statutory 90 days; lien amendments are like pleadings | Respondent: the amendment increasing the amount is ineffective under §172 | Held: §172 does not prohibit an amended lien increasing the amount when the amendment is filed within the 90‑day period; such amendments are permitted |
| Whether §172 permits post‑filing (after the 90‑day period) amendments in enforcement actions | Biantrav: §172 permits amendments in enforcement suits in furtherance of justice, like other pleadings | Respondent: §172’s language (except as to amount) limits post‑period amendments to prevent increasing the claim | Held: §172 is a mechanism to allow amendments in enforcement actions to correct technical defects after the filing period has expired, but the Court emphasized that changes to amount are plainly permitted when made within the §143 90‑day window |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Peterson, 126 P.3d 1232 (Okla. 2005) (original jurisdiction may be assumed when decision rests on an erroneous conclusion of law)
- Cannon v. Lane, 867 P.2d 1235 (Okla. 1993) (writ of prohibition appropriate where public interest renders that remedy appropriate)
- Whitfield v. Frensley Bros. Lbr. Co., 283 P. 985 (Okla. 1930) (multiple lien statements may be filed to perfect a lien while the filing period remains open)
- Davidson Oil Country Supply Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Equip. Co., 689 P.2d 1279 (Okla. 1984) (purpose of mechanic's lien statute is to protect subcontractors, secure payment, and give owners notice)
- El Reno Elec. Light & Tel. Co. v. Jennison, 50 P. 144 (Okla. 1897) (interpretation of statutory provision protecting owners from suit during subcontractor filing period)