Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam
814 N.W.2d 692
| Minn. | 2012Background
- This case involves two mechanic’s liens foreclosed against a Ramsey County hotel property and the service of lien statements.
- Hunter Construction, Midwest, and Verde served lien statements personally on the property owner Lam and project manager Mailatyar, asserting substantial claims.
- Briekwell Community Bank challenged the validity of service under Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1(2) and Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02, arguing service by an agent was improper.
- The district court held service proper, and the court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The liens arose from a 2006–2007 hotel renovation project for Wing-Heng, owner of the La Quinta Inn in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
- Lam denied being served and Wilkinson disputed the on-site service; Hunter testified he personally delivered the lien statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 4.02 govern service of mechanic’s lien statements? | Brickwell argues 4.02 applies since it prohibits service by a party to the action. | Respondents contend lien statements are not summons/process; 4.02 does not apply. | 4.02 does not govern service of a mechanic’s lien statement. |
| Whether a lien claimant may serve a lien statement personally via an agent | Brickwell argues service by an agent is improper under 514.08(1)(2) because it requires a nonparty to serve. | Respondents contend ‘serviced personally’ does not restrict who may perform service if done correctly. | A lien claimant may serve personally (via a party or agent) and service was proper. |
| Is the service by Hunter, as an agent, valid under Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1(2)? | Brickwell asserts service by Hunter violated the statute’s intent about who may serve. | Respondents rely on plain meaning of ‘served personally’ allowing actual delivery by a lien claimant or authorized agent. | Service by Hunter was proper under the statute; plain meaning applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkpatrick v. Lewis, 47 N.W. 970 (Minn. 1891) (addresses who may perform notice/service in analogous foreclosure context)
- Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt, 683 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 2004) (service by certified mail consistent with Rule 5.02; rules not binding if inconsistent with statute)
- Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. JAG Invs., Inc., 684 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 2001) (applies Rule 4.03 to commence a lien foreclosure action; distinct from lien statement service)
- Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink, 739 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. 2007) (relation back doctrine; mechanic’s lien proceedings interactions with rules)
- Merle’s Constr. Co. v. Berg, 442 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 1989) (equates prelien personal delivery with personal service under statute)