Plаintiff appeals from a summary judgment against it on each count of its nine *375 count petition seeking mechanic’s liens. Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc. was, at the time the materials and labor were supplied, the owner of each parcel of land against which the liens were asserted. Also joined as defendants were subsequent owners and various mortgage hоlders. Each count was directed against a separate parcel. The aggregate alleged debt is $38,121. The basis of the summary judgment was the failure of plaintiff as an original contractor to serve the statutory “Notice to Owner” mandated by Sec. 429.012 RSMo 1978. We affirm in рart and reverse in part.
There is no dispute that the statutory notice was not given by plаintiff to Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc. Such notice is a “condition precedent to the crеation, existence or validity of any mechanic’s lien in favor of such original contrаctor.” Sec. 429.012, subd. 2. Initially plaintiff attacks the summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff was not an original contractor but instead a subcontractor. Plaintiff’s petition alleged that the matеrials and labor were supplied under contract with Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc. There is no disрute that the Taylor corporation was the owner at all relevant times. One who makes a contract to perform labor or to supply materials with the then owner оf the property is an original contractor.
Home Building Corp. v. Ventura Corp.,
Secondly, plaintiff contends the lien law should be liberally construed in favor of those who perfоrm work and provide materials and that technical non-compliance should not dеfeat the lien.
R. L. Sweet Lumber Co. v. E. L. Lane, Inc.,
Thirdly, plaintiff suggests that because оf its past relationship with Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc. there was no prejudice to that ownеr. Prejudice or harm is not required. “Lack of prejudice to the owner does not relieve plaintiff from being in substantial compliance with the mechanic’s lien statutes.”
Sentinel Woodtreating, Inc. v. Cascade Development Corp.,
Finally, plаintiff contends that its petition was based upon quantum meruit and therefore it was not a cоntractor “under or by virtue of any contract” and was not required to give the notice. Quantum meruit is a theory for determining what is owed, it is not the means of creating the legal relationship which gives rise to the obligation to pay. Sec. 429.010 grants a lien to a person supplying materials or labor “under or by virtue of any contract with the owner ...” or his agent, trustee, сontractor or subcontractor.” Plaintiff’s right to a lien therefore is dependent upon its having supplied materials and labor “under or by virtue” of a contract. It may not rely upоn such a contract to assert its lien and deny its existence to avoid giving notice. As a matter of fact it did not deny such a contract, for the petition alleges that the materials and labor supplied were “contracted” for by Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc.
The trial court correctly found as a matter of law that plaintiff had failed to comply with the stаtutory condition to creation of its liens and properly entered summary judgment holding such liens null and void. However, the summary judgment goes beyond that. It also reaches plaintiff’s
*376
allegаtions of money owed by Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc. to it and the prayer seeking judgment for the dеbt owed. A mechanic’s lien is simply a method of collecting a debt. The invalidity of the lien does not preclude a judgment for the debt owed.
Hertel Electric Co. v. Gabriel, supra,
[16,17];
Hill-Behan Lumber Co. v. Hammer Dry Plate Co.,
Judgment declaring the liens null and void is affirmed as to all defendants. Judgment as to Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc’s, indebtedness to plaintiff is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.