R.A. Greig Equipment Co. v. Mark Erie Hospitality
305 A.3d 56
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- R.A. Greig Equipment Company filed a mechanics’ lien to secure $191,703 against two adjacent Erie properties owned by Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC for a leased telehandler and unpaid rental charges.
- Claimed amounts: $135,311 for replacement (window sticker) cost of a damaged 2019 Haulotte telehandler and $56,392 for 19 months of rental charges after the telehandler was removed following alleged damage.
- Greig reinstated the lien and later released the lien as to the vacant parcel; the dispute focused on the lien against the hotel parcel.
- Mark Erie filed preliminary objections arguing the telehandler and rental charges are not “materials” under the Mechanics’ Lien Law and thus not lienable.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and struck the lien, concluding the equipment and rental claims were not “materials” because they were not incorporated into the improvement. Greig appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, applying statutory text and precedent that ‘‘materials’’ must be reasonably necessary and incorporated into the improvement to support a mechanics’ lien.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greig) | Defendant's Argument (Mark Erie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greig complied with Mechanics’ Lien Law requirements | Claim complied with statutory filing requirements and itemized amounts | Even if procedural requirements met, the substance of the claim fails because items are not lienable materials | Court: Compliance with form does not save a claim that, as a matter of law, seeks non-lienable items |
| Whether the telehandler and unpaid rentals are "materials" under 49 P.S. §1201(7) | Telehandler and charges fall within "supplies of all kinds" and therefore are "materials" | Equipment and rental charges were not incorporated into the improvement and thus are not "materials" | Court: Not "materials"—equipment and rental charges not incorporated into the improvement; therefore not lienable |
| Whether the claimed replacement and rental amounts were unliquidated despite itemization | Amounts were itemized and thus sufficiently liquidated to support a lien | Even if itemized, they are for non-lienable categories so liquidity is irrelevant | Court: Did not reach favorably on liquidation; dispositive issue is non-lienability of the items |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman Lumber Co. v. Gibson, 119 A. 741 (Pa. 1923) (materials must be reasonably necessary and actually become part of the permanent structure to support a lien)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (standard of review and demurrer principles applied to preliminary objections)
- Bargo v. Kuhns, 98 A.3d 686 (Pa. Super. 2014) (preliminary objections in nature of demurrer test legal sufficiency of the complaint)
- Artsmith Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Updegraff, 868 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statutory basis limits mechanics’ liens to labor and materials)
- Matternas v. Stehman, 642 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 1994) (interpreting the protective, limited scope of mechanics’ lien statute)
- Cooper v. Frankford Health Care Sys., Inc., 960 A.2d 134 (Pa. Super. 2008) (treatment of orders sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer as final and appealable)
- Bush Const. Machinery, Inc. v. Kansas City Factor Outlets, L.L.C., 81 S.W.3d 121 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (leased machinery must become a permanent part of the construction to be lienable)
- Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 979 P.2d 627 (Idaho 1999) (leased equipment not incorporated into project cannot support a mechanics’ lien)