762 S.E.2d 561
S.C.2014Background
- Ferguson Fire supplied materials to Immedion via contractor Preferred Fire for a data center improvement; Ferguson seeks a mechanic's lien against Immedion.
- Ferguson served a September 21, 2007 Notice of Furnishing stating it furnished labor/materials valued at about $15,000; the notice stated it was not a lien and did not demand payment.
- Immedion paid Preferred Fire in full under its contract and subsequently paid the remaining balance after Ferguson's notice; Ferguson had not been paid.
- Ferguson filed a mechanic's lien and foreclosure suit in April 2008; the circuit court granted summary judgment for Immedion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the Notice of Furnishing was ineffective.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the Court of Appeals erred by imposing nonstatutory requirements and that Ferguson followed proper statutory steps for a lien.
- The court refiled the opinion to remove a nonmaterial sentence from the factual recitation and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a Notice of Furnishing under §29-5-40 restricted to post-delivery demands and timing? | Ferguson Fire followed §29-5-40; notice could precede full delivery and need not demand payment. | Court of Appeals added requirements not in the statute; notice timing and content must align strictly with §29-5-40. | No; statute plain; notice may be given before all materials are delivered and need not include a payment demand. |
| Does the lien attach where the furnishing party is not in privity with the owner, under §29-5-20 and §29-5-40? | Ferguson Fire, as a material supplier, obtains a lien on the owner's property once proper notice is given. | The lack of direct contract with owner requires strict adherence to §29-5-40 for attachment. | Ferguson followed the statutory sequence; lien attached per §29-5-20 with proper §29-5-40 notice. |
| Were the steps for perfection and enforcement of the lien properly followed (notice/certificate, suit, lis pendens) timing-wise? | Timeline complied; notice, then lien notice after delivery, then foreclosure filing. | Appellate court misread timing requirements and imposed extra constraints. | Yes; steps were properly followed and the lien was enforceable. |
| Did the Court of Appeals erred by treating §29-5-40 as requiring pre-delivery notice of a lien with a demand? | Notice of Furnishing sufficed to notify owner of furnishing; separate lien notice followed with demand after delivery. | Court of Appeals correctly required timing/content akin to a lien notice. | Yes; the Court of Appeals erred; Ferguson complied with the statutory scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Court St., L.L.C., 369 S.C. 121, 631 S.E.2d 252 (2006) (strict adherence to mechanics' lien statutes; lien processes must be followed)
- Lowndes Hill Realty Co. v. Greenville Concrete Co., 229 S.C. 619, 93 S.E.2d 855 (1956) (notice under §29-5-40 may be given at any time; lien amount limited to unpaid balance)
- Shelley Constr. Co. v. Sea Garden Homes, Inc., 287 S.C. 24, 336 S.E.2d 488 (Ct. App. 1985) (construction of lien statutes; inchoate lien arises when labor/materials furnished)
- Stovall Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. Mottet, 305 S.C. 28, 406 S.E.2d 176 (Ct. App. 1990) (section 29-5-40 timing; lien attachment and owner liability limits)