Anderson v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 26 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40831,40831 |
| Citation | 281 Minn. 95,160 N.W.2d 560 |
| Parties | Hjalmer ANDERSON dba Well and Pump Co., Respondent, v. C. C. HARRISON, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In asserting a mechanics lien against a vendor's security interest for improvements ordered by a vendee under a contract for deed, the vendor's consent to the improvements will not be presumed.
The lienor has the burden of proving the vendor had knowledge of the improvements, and it is then incumbent on the vendor to prove that he disclaimed responsibility by serving or posting notice pursuant to Minn.St. § 514.06.
C. J. Manahan, Madelia, John F. Markert, St. Paul, for appellants.
Gilbert W. Terwilliger, Red Wing, for respondent.
This is an action to foreclose a mechanics lien in the sum of $866.29 for labor and material furnished in repairing a well and water system at the New England Motel near Red Wing. The defendants Harrison sold the property by a contract for deed in February 1958. Wilbur and Muriel Petersen acquired the vendee's interest in November 1963. Plaintiff failed to join them although they were in possession and ordered the work done. The action was brought against the vendors, C. C. Harrison and Evelyn Harrison, on the theory the work was authorized by their agents. This appeal is taken by the Harrisons from a judgment imposing a lien on their security interest. The only issue which we deem necessary for decision is whether Minn.St. § 514.06 imposes on the vendors the burden of proving that the improvements were made without their knowledge or consent. 1
In December 1963 the labor and material here in question were furnished at the Petersens' request. Although plaintiff claims that the work was authorized by an agent of the Harrisons, there is nothing in the record to support his position. The defense asserted by the Harrisons was the failure of plaintiff to join the Petersens as indispensable parties under § 514.14 and Rules 19.01 and 19.02, Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 The trial court held that defendants were at liberty to join the Petersens and plaintiff's failure to do so was not fatal. It found as a fact that the Harrisons had notice of the improvements but neglected to post disclaimer or serve notice on plaintiffs as required by § 514.06. The relief granted imposed a lien on the Harrisons' interest but a personal judgment against them was denied.
Although the court's finding that the Harrisons had notice of the improvements has no support in the evidence, it was apparently based on a construction of Stravs v. Steckbauer, 136 Minn. 69, 161 N.W. 259, and § 514.06. In a memorandum made a part of its findings, the court stated:
Although the rule adopted by the trial court seems to find support in the Stravs case, the language in that opinion cannot be reconciled with the statute or with decisions rendered prior or subsequent to it.
Under § 514.06, '* * * Any person who has not authorized (improvements) may protect his interest from such liens by serving upon the persons doing work or otherwise contributing to such improvement within five days After knowledge thereof, written notice that the improvement is not being made at his instance, or by posting like notice, and keeping the same posted, in a conspicuous place on the premises.' (Italics supplied.)
In Stravs, work was commenced on an apartment building with the knowledge of one co-owner but not the other. We held the mechanics' lien attached to the interest of both the owners, stating (136 Minn. 71, 161 N.W. 260):
'* * * By this provision a presumption of consent to improvements is raised, Prima facie at least, against the owner, and, if he does not consent but wishes to protect his interest, he must do so by serving or posting notices, and the burden of proving such notice is upon the owner.'
Shortly thereafter, in Berglund & Peterson v. Abram, 148 Minn. 412, 182 N.W. 624, we recognized the rule that a lien may not be imposed on the interest of one who does not have knowledge of the improvements. There we stated (148 Minn. 414, 182 N.W. 625):
'* * * But it is also well settled that the Legislature may provide by statute that improvements made With the knowledge of the landowner shall be deemed to have been made at his instance, unless he disclaims responsibility therefor in the manner and within the time prescribed by the statute.' (Italics supplied.)
All of the other Minnesota decisions which have been called to our attention are predicated on actual knowledge of the improvements and not on a 'presumption of consent' as the Stravs case seems to suggest. Schreiber v. Scott, 163 Minn. 422, 423, 204 N.W. 575; Brown v. W. W. Heffelfinger Realty Co., 159 Minn. 182, 185, 198 N.W. 424, 425; Fauser v. McElroy, 157 Minn. 116, 195 N.W. 786; Rockey v. Joslyn, 134 Minn. 468, 158 N.W. 787; McCausland v. West Duluth Land Co., 51 Minn. 246, 53 N.W. 464.
The statute itself states that the owner is deemed to have authorized improvements but goes on to provide that he may protect himself by serving or posting notice 'within five days after knowledge thereof.' Clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Const. Co., Inc., of Minneapolis
...by the lease, and first learned about the improvements when they received respondents' notices of lien. Citing Anderson v. Harrison, 281 Minn. 95, 160 N.W.2d 560 (1968), the trial court concluded that appellants lacked actual knowledge of the improvements made on their property, and, accord......
-
Mid-America Steel, Inc. v. Bjone, MID-AMERICA
...not a "bona fide prior encumbrancer or lienor" exempted from the statute. The second case relied upon by Rogers, Anderson v. Harrison, 281 Minn. 95, 160 N.W.2d 560 (1968), is factually similar to the instant case, but the contract vendor apparently did not assert that he was an encumbrancer......
-
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh
...application in this case. Nor does the rationale underlying the knowledge requirement so limit its application. In Anderson v. Harrison, 281 Minn. 95, 160 N.W.2d 560 (1968), the court explained that the legislature, in erecting the section 514.06 presumption, "clearly * * * intended to auth......
-
Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Tafi's, Inc.
...Elks neither authorized nor had actual knowledge of the commencement of remodeling, its fee interest, as held in Anderson v. Harrison, 281 Minn. 95, 160 N.W.2d 560 (1968), is not subject to lien claims, and that therefore Prudential's purchase money mortgage interest, represented by the amo......