Kress Brothers v. Williams, P.
Kress Brothers v. Williams, P. No. 930 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Kress Brothers (contractor) contracted with George Saddler to repair a rented property after pipe damage; contract price $15,722.63; Saddler paid $3,483.49, leaving $12,239.14 unpaid.
- Saddler represented to Kress that he was the property owner, provided homeowner’s-insurance information in his name, and signed the contract as owner; no lease was provided to Kress.
- Kress filed a mechanics’ lien (June 11, 2015) and then a Complaint to Enforce Mechanics’ Lien (Nov. 12, 2015) after nonpayment; owners (sisters who lived out of state) filed preliminary objections under the Mechanics’ Lien Law, §1303(d).
- Trial court sustained owners’ preliminary objections and dismissed Kress’s amended complaint with prejudice, concluding §1303(d) barred a lien when the contract was with a tenant and no written owner authorization existed.
- Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding that §1303(d) is not an absolute bar where facts may establish estoppel — i.e., owners’ conduct (knowledge, consent, misrepresentations by tenant) could prevent owners from invoking §1303(d). The case was sent back for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preliminary objections were properly sustained (demurrer) | Kress: complaint alleged facts (tenant misrepresented ownership; owners knew/consented) sufficient to survive demurrer | Owners: §1303(d) precludes lien because contract was with a tenant and no written owner authorization exists | Reversed — cannot dismiss at demurrer stage where facts might show estoppel; claims must be developed at trial/discovery |
| Applicability of §1303(d) where contractor contracted with tenant | Kress: never alleged tenancy in complaint; alleged tenant held himself out as owner and owners acquiesced | Owners: §1303(d) bars lien against owner absent written statement that work was for owner’s immediate use/benefit | §1303(d) applies generally but is not absolute; estoppel can defeat owner’s §1303(d) defense if owner’s conduct warrants it |
| Whether §1303(d) is absolute bar to lien | Kress: §1303(d) not absolute where owner misleads or permits tenant to act as owner (estoppel) | Owners: §1303(d) provides an absolute statutory protection for owners of leased premises without written consent | Court: §1303(d) is not an absolute bar; prior precedent (Chambers, Kelly) permits estoppel where owner did not act in good faith |
| Whether discovery should have been allowed before dismissal | Kress: needs discovery on ownership, owners’ knowledge/consent, insurance checks, terms | Owners: dismissal appropriate based on statute and record | Held: factual issues exist that warrant discovery and evidentiary proceedings; dismissal was premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Zemon, 167 A.2d 253 (Pa. 1961) (mechanics’ lien right arises from a contract; written owner consent is a condition precedent to charging owner where contract was with tenant)
- Chambers v. Todd Steel Pickling, Inc., 470 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 1983) (estoppel can bar owner from invoking the written-consent requirement where owner’s agent misled contractor about ownership)
- Key Automotive Equip. Specialists, Inc. v. Abernathy, 636 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 1994) (distinguishes cases where contractor knew it contracted with a tenant from those involving owner misrepresentations; good-faith owner conduct matters)
- Kelly v. Hannan, 566 A.2d 310 (Pa. Super. 1989) (owner who did not act in good faith and knew tenant intended to contract as owner may be liable despite absence of written §1303(d) waiver)
- Fluke v. Lang, 128 A. 663 (Pa. 1925) (owner may be liable if tenant acted as owner and owner knew; historical basis for estoppel principles)
- Wendt & Sons v. New Hedstrom Corp., 858 A.2d 631 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections in mechanics’ lien proceedings; dismissal appropriate only where case is clear and doubtless)
- Wyatt PNC v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, 976 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Mechanics’ Lien Law construed narrowly; strict compliance required)
- B.N. Excavating, Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A, L.P., 71 A.3d 274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (pleading sufficiency on demurrer review; dismissal not warranted where record does not clearly preclude recovery)