JMAC Farms, LLC v. G & C Generator, LLC
537 S.W.3d 274
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- G & C Generator sold generators and transfer switches to McReynolds, McReynolds installed materials for poultry-house construction for JMAC, and G & C sought $66,200 for those materials.
- G & C filed a verified lien account and complaint to foreclose a materialmen’s lien against a parcel described by metes-and-bounds and the street address 20190 Garman Road in Benton County.
- JMAC disputed the property: it submitted affidavits, aerial photos, payment evidence, and contracts showing the poultry houses were on different tracts/addresses and that JMAC had paid McReynolds.
- McReynolds defaulted; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by G & C and JMAC. The trial court granted summary judgment to G & C.
- On appeal, the issue was whether G & C strictly complied with Arkansas lien statutes by describing the correct property and whether a lien may attach to property where no improvements were made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G & C’s lien properly described the job site and property | G & C argued its legal description and street address sufficiently identified the property and job site | JMAC argued the description identified a parcel with only a residence and barn, not the poultry-house improvements, so notice and filing were incorrect | Court held the lien described property that did not contain the improvements and was therefore improper |
| Whether strict compliance with statutory notice and description requirements is required | G & C argued pinpoint precision is not required; substantial identification is enough | JMAC argued strict compliance is required because lien statutes are in derogation of common law | Court applied controlling precedent requiring strict construction and compliance with lien statutes |
| Whether a materialman can have a lien on property where no improvements were made | G & C contended its materials were incorporated into improvements and thus lien attached to described property | JMAC contended the described parcel had no improvements made by G & C, so no lien could attach | Court held a lien cannot attach to property on which the material supplier made no improvements under Ark. Code Ann. § 18-44-101(a) |
| Entitlement to summary judgment | G & C argued undisputed facts entitled it to judgment as a matter of law | JMAC argued factual disputes about location of improvements and incorrect property description precluded judgment | Court concluded G & C was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and reversed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ground Zero Constr., Inc. v. Walnut Creek, LLC, 2012 Ark. 243 (lien statutes are strictly construed; strict compliance required for statutory notice)
- Books-A-Million, Inc. v. Arkansas Painting & Specialties Co., 340 Ark. 467 (materialmen’s-lien statutes are in derogation of the common law and construed strictly)
- BB & B Constr. Co., Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 316 Ark. 663 (strict application of lien statute principles)
- Valley Metal Works, Inc. v. A.O. Smith-Inland, 264 Ark. 341 (lien statute interpretation supporting strict construction)
- Christy v. Nabholz Supply Co., Inc., 261 Ark. 127 (lien statutory requirements and strict compliance)