305 A.3d 56
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- R.A. Greig filed a mechanics’ lien (Mar. 9, 2022; reinstated Mar. 30, 2022) against two adjacent Erie properties owned by Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC; lien later released as to the vacant parcel.
- Claim sought $135,311 for replacement/window sticker costs to a leased Telehandler (2019 Haulotte LT 9055) and $56,392 in unpaid rental charges for the Telehandler, totaling $191,703.
- Rental charges covered a 19‑month period after the Telehandler was removed from the site following alleged damage on Sept. 5, 2020.
- Appellee filed preliminary objections (Nov. 15, 2022); trial court sustained them and struck the lien (Jan. 25, 2023) on the ground that the Telehandler and rental charges were not "materials" under the Mechanics’ Lien Law.
- Trial court treated the preliminary objections as a demurrer and did not permit amendment; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in striking the mechanics’ lien though the Claim complied with Act requirements | Greig: Claim met statutory filing requirements and should stand | Mark Erie: Telehandler and rental charges are not recoverable "materials" under the Act | Court affirmed: prelim. objections sustained; lien struck |
| Whether leased equipment and related rental/replacement charges constitute "materials" under 49 P.S. § 1201(7) | Greig: equipment fits within broad "supplies of all kinds" language and qualifies as "materials" | Mark Erie: statute requires materials to be reasonably necessary and incorporated into the improvement; leased equipment was not incorporated | Court held they are not "materials" because not incorporated into the improvement |
| Whether the claimed replacement cost and unpaid rental charges were improperly characterized as "unliquidated" | Greig: damages were itemized in the Claim and therefore not unliquidated | Mark Erie: primarily argued non‑materiality; court also treated legal insufficiency as dispositive | Court did not reach a contrary conclusion; disposition rested on non‑materiality as matter of law |
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 mechanics’ lien)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (standard of review for demurrers; accept well‑pleaded facts)
- Bargo v. Kuhns, 98 A.3d 686 (Pa. Super. 2014) (preliminary objections in nature of demurrer test legal sufficiency)
- Artsmith Dev. Group, Inc. v. Updegraff, 868 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statutory lien limited to labor and materials)
- Matternas v. Stehman, 642 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 1994) (purpose of mechanics’ lien protects prepayment of labor and materials)
- 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)
- Southeastern Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Inco, Inc., 424 S.E.2d 433 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (rental equipment is not a "material" for lien purposes)