Crawford Services, Inc. v. Skillman International Firm, L.L.C., 444 S.W.3d 265

Crawford Services contracted with Skillman to repair/replace an HVAC system and substantially completed work but remained unpaid for ≈ $140,000.
Crawford filed a statutory mechanic’s lien under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code and sued for breach of contract and foreclosure of the lien.
At bench trial the court found Crawford proved the debt and had perfected its mechanic’s lien, and entered judgment for Crawford on the debt.
The trial court nonetheless declined to enter a judgment of foreclosure and an order of sale, stating it was exercising discretion under Tex. Prop. Code § 53.154.
Crawford moved to modify the judgment to include foreclosure and appealed when the court denied the motion; the appellate court framed the sole issue as whether § 53.154 allows the trial court to deny foreclosure once a lien is found valid and perfected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tex. Prop. Code § 53.154 gives the trial court discretion to deny foreclosure of a perfected mechanic’s lien	“May” in the statute means the only way to foreclose is by court judgment (no judicial discretion to deny foreclosure)	“May” connotes judicial discretion; court can refuse foreclosure despite a valid perfected lien	Court held § 53.154 does not give discretion to deny foreclosure; lienholder entitled to judgment of foreclosure and order of sale once debt and lien are proven and perfected
Whether an indemnity bond filed by Skillman discharged the lien	N/A (Crawford disputed compliance)	Skillman argued it filed a compliant indemnity bond that discharged the lien	Appellate court concluded record did not show compliance with statutory requirements for discharge by bond, so lien not shown discharged

City of Houston v. Bates, 406 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; legislative intent via plain text)
CVN Group, Inc. v. Delgado, 95 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. 2002) (history and scope of mechanic’s lien statutes)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (distinguishing statutory language that grants entitlement from language that grants judicial discretion)
First Nat’l Bank in Graham v. Sledge, 653 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. 1983) (statutory lien rights dependent on compliance with perfection statutes)
First Nat’l Bank in Dallas v. Whirlpool Corp., 517 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1974) (mechanic’s lien statutes construed liberally to protect laborers and materialmen)
Lippencott v. York, 24 S.W. 275 (Tex. 1893) (the lien can be enforced only through judicial foreclosure and sale)
Gill Sav. Ass’n v. Int’l Supply Co., 759 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988) (citing § 53.154: lien foreclosure only by judicial sale)
Seeds v. Edgerton, 209 S.W.2d 987 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1948) (once a valid mechanic’s lien is proved, plaintiff is entitled to foreclosure)