2020 Ohio 4484
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- DP&L sold large steam-turbine/generator units in "as‑is" Purchase and Sale Agreement (Oct 2016) to General Recovery Recycling (GRR); title passed on initial deposit and GRR agreed to dismantle/remove the equipment.
- GRR hired Zenith Industrial Demolition to remove the units; Zenith rented equipment from Vandalia Rentals (operated by BND Rentals), which furnished the rental machinery used on site.
- BND, unpaid for rentals totaling $120,308.75, served notice under Ohio mechanic’s lien statutes and then filed an affidavit for a lien on DP&L’s Hutchings property; DP&L obtained a bond substituting for the lien and DP&L moved to invalidate the lien.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for DP&L, finding no contractual privity and that GRR owned the equipment at removal; it did not decide whether removal constituted an "improvement."
- On appeal the court held the trial court erred to the extent it required privity, but affirmed summary judgment because the removed equipment was not an "improvement" under R.C. 1311.01(J) (not a fixture, appurtenance, or other structure), so BND could not enforce a mechanic’s lien.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 1311.02 requires contractual privity with the owner to file a mechanic’s lien | BND: privity not required — it furnished "materials" (rental equipment) to a subcontractor (Zenith) performing work in furtherance of an improvement | DP&L: BND lacked privity; GRR purchased the equipment and the transaction was a sale, not an improvement project | Court: statute does not require privity; suppliers to contractors/subcontractors may qualify under R.C. 1311.02 (privity not required) |
| Whether removal of the turbine/generator units was an "improvement" under R.C. 1311.01(J) (fixture, appurtenance, or other structure) | BND: removal of large, integral plant equipment constituted removal of an "improvement," so lien rights attach | DP&L: the transaction was a sale of personalty; equipment was devoted to the business, not the land, so removal is not an improvement | Court: equipment was business machinery (not fixtures/appurtenances/structures); removal was not an "improvement," so no mechanic’s lien — summary judgment for DP&L affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 (establishes three‑part common‑law fixture test: annexation, appropriation to use, and intent)
- Zangerle v. Std. Oil Co. of Ohio, 144 Ohio St. 506 (adopts Teaff test and distinguishes business‑devoted machinery from realty)
- Zangerle v. Republic Steel Corp., 144 Ohio St. 529 (applies fixture analysis to heavy industrial machinery)
- Wireman v. Keneco Distribs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 103 (applies fixture analysis outside taxation context)
- Funtime, Inc. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 74 (discusses statute‑based revival of appropriation‑to‑use test and legislative definitions of business fixtures)
- Metamora Elevator Co. v. Fulton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 143 Ohio St.3d 359 (business fixtures treated as personal property under R.C. 5701.03)
- Mid-Ohio Mechanical, Inc. v. Carden Metal Fabricators, Inc., 169 Ohio App.3d 225 (mechanic’s lien case analyzing whether installed equipment constituted an improvement)