499 S.W.3d 296
Mo.2016Background
- St. Louis County adopted a financing/development plan for Six City Place, executed industrial revenue bonds, and entered a Lease Agreement with Cornerstone under which Cornerstone would construct the project "on behalf of the County" and act as the County's agent.
- Cornerstone deeded the fee to the County and was authorized to draw on the bonds; the Lease allowed certain assignments of the leasehold interest.
- Clayco was general contractor; Pal’s Glass was subcontractor to Clayco and subcontracted portions to Brentwood Glass. Brentwood Glass performed work and claims it was unpaid for work after January 12, 2007.
- Brentwood Glass served a 10-day notice of intent to lien on Cornerstone (not the County), then filed a mechanic’s lien naming Cornerstone as owner, claiming $1,061,464.08.
- Brentwood Glass sued on multiple counts including (1) mechanic’s lien against defendants (Count VIII) and (2) claim that the County failed to require a public works payment bond under section 107.170 (Count IX). The circuit court granted summary judgment to defendants; Brentwood appeals only Counts VIII and IX.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mechanic’s lien can attach despite County ownership | Brentwood: lien can attach to Cornerstone’s leasehold interest; notice to Cornerstone suffices | Defendants: lien cannot attach to public entity property; notice/timeliness/statement deficient | Court: Lien cannot attach to County fee, but may be enforced against Cornerstone leasehold; reversed as to Cornerstone, affirmed as to County |
| Whether Brentwood gave timely notice under §429.100 | Brentwood: served 10-day notice on Cornerstone as owner/agent | Defendants: notice insufficient or untimely | Court: Notice to Cornerstone satisfied statutory requirement for leasehold claim; genuine issue of fact exists regarding timeliness of filing |
| Whether lien was timely filed (accrual date) under §429.080 | Brentwood: last work occurred in Feb 2007 (after Jan 12), so lien filed within 6 months | Defendants: last substantial work ended Jan 31, 2007; later dates are fabrication | Court: Date of last labor is factual; genuine fact issue exists so summary judgment improper |
| Whether lien statement was a "just and true account" under §429.080 | Brentwood: itemized statement; mistakes were honest/inadvertent; substantial compliance | Defendants: statement includes nonlienable items, inflated rates, and uncredited payments—intentional overstatement | Court: Material factual disputes about inclusion/intent; summary judgment improper on lien validity against Cornerstone |
| Whether §107.170 bond requirement applies and claimant can recover | Brentwood: Cornerstone was a "contractor" providing construction services to County; County should have required bond; plaintiff may amend to name officials | Defendants/County: Cornerstone did not "provide construction services" as contractor under §107.170; County immune and plaintiff sued wrong party | Court: Section 107.170 did not apply because Cornerstone was not a "contractor" under the statute; and Brentwood sued only the County (so sovereign immunity bars recovery); summary judgment affirmed on bond claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bob DeGeorge Assocs., Inc. v. Hawthorn Bank, 377 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. banc 2012) (purpose and equitable nature of mechanic’s lien law)
- State ex rel. Springfield Underground, Inc. v. Sweeney, 102 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. banc 2003) (mechanic’s lien statutes construed liberally)
- Redbird Eng’g Sales, Inc. v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 806 S.W.2d 695 (Mo. App. 1991) (mechanic’s liens cannot attach to property owned by a public entity)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment de novo; standards for genuine dispute)
- Commercial Openings, Inc. v. Mathews, 819 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1991) (adequacy of subcontractor’s lien statement depends on detail to allow investigation)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Seven Palms Motor Inn, Inc., 530 S.W.2d 695 (Mo. banc 1975) (inclusion of nonlienable items does not vitiate lien if honest mistake without intent to defraud)