Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., Div. of Apac-Arkansas, Inc. v. Hutchinson
| Decision Date | 30 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | APAC-ARKANSA,No. 86-215,INC,86-215 |
| Citation | 291 Ark. 570,726 S.W.2d 674 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | ARKHOLA SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY, a DIVISION OF, Appellant, v. Rick HUTCHINSON; Rusty Goodman; Martin E. Lancaster, and Sandra Lancaster, Appellees. |
Daily, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield by Jerry Canfield, Fort Smith, for appellant.
Ball, Mourton & Adams by Stephen E. Adams, Fayetteville, for appellees.
Arkhola Sand and Gravel Company, appellant, appeals the dismissal of its suit to enforce a materialmen's lien against Martin and Sandra Lancaster, appellees.
The Lancasters, owners of a convenience store, had engaged Rick Hutchinson and Rusty Goodman, defendants below, to build a car wash adjacent to their store. Arkhola sold materials to Hutchinson and Goodman used in the construction of the car wash. When Hutchinson and Goodman failed to pay for the materials Arkhola brought an action against them to collect the amount due and against the Lancasters to impress a materialmen's lien upon their real property pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 51-601 et seq. Arkhola had followed the procedures outlined in the statutes, including the filing requirements of § 51-613.
The Lancasters moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the lien had never attached. They argued that § 51-613 requires a correct description of the property when a materialmen's lien is filed and Arkhola's description was insufficient. The lien recorded by Arkhola described the land as follows:
Springdale outlots:
Part of the West Half (W 1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4), Section Twelve (12), Township seventeen (17), Range Thirty (30), containing .79 acres.
There was no specificity as to where within the 20 acre tract the Lancasters' .79 acre was situated. 1 The trial court held for the Lancasters, found the description insufficient and dismissed the case as to the Lancasters.
On appeal, Arkhola relies primarily on Whitener v. Purifoy, 177 Ark. 39, 5 S.W. 724 (1928). In that case the description merely described two contiguous forty acre tracts. The court found however that the defendant owned both tracts, that there was only one dwelling house on the land and that there could be no uncertainty as to the tract upon which the lien was claimed. The court stated the description need not be in any particular form and that the essential requirement is that the land or building be designated "in such language as will afford information concerning the situation of the property to be charged with the lien."
Arkhola quotes the above language and insists there is no doubt but that its description gave sufficient notice to any inquiring party of the property to be charged with the lien. Arkhola fails however to show how this is possible based on the limited description it included in its filing. Unlike Whitener, where the entire 80 acres was owned by the defendant and there was only one dwelling on the property, Arkhola's description is simply a 20 acre tract and there is no way to determine where within that 20 acres the Lancasters' .79 acre is located or how the particular structure can be identified, or even what kind of a structure it is.
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 51-617 provides for the contents of a complaint when proceeding to foreclose on a materialmen's lien. It states "... The petition, among other things, shall allege the facts necessary for securing a lien under this act[.]" Included in the requirements for filing a lien is a "correct description" of the property to be charged with a lien. (§ 51-613). See also, Chaffin v. McFaddin, 41 Ark. 42 (1883); Conway Lumber Co. v. Hardin, 119 Ark. 43, 117 S.W. 408 (1915); Big A Warehouse Distr. Inc. v. Rye Auto Supply, Inc., 19 Ark.App. 286, 719 S.W.2d 716 (1986). Arkhola failed in its complaint to show that the description required by § 51-613 was sufficient and the court was correct in granting the Lancasters' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted. ARCP Rule 12(b)(6).
Arkhola further contends that if the description is insufficient, it be allowed to offer extrinsic evidence to show that the description is in fact adequate. Appellant is correct in theory.
While the description was insufficient to state the prerequisites for a cause of action pursuant to § 51-613, that would not necessarily have precluded Arkhola from refiling with a properly stated claim. See Big A Warehouse, supra; Ratliff v. Moss, 284 Ark. 16, 678 S.W.2d 369 (1984). Such action would have been possible in this case because as Arkhola submits we have held that extrinsic evidence may be used to show that the description is adequate--that it does in fact "afford information concerning the situation of the property to be charged with the lien." Whitener, supra. It was on that basis that the court in Whitener found the description sufficient, as it was shown that although the filing description only described two 40 acre tracts, the defendant owned both the tracts in question and there was only one dwelling on the property. Similarly in In Re Taylor Oak Flooring Co., 87 F.Supp. 6, 11 (W.D.Ark.1949), the court, relying on Arkansas cases, found that while the description was not specific in itself, the defendant owned no other property in the county and upon inquiry one could have been directed to the named company with no difficulty. Among other Arkansas cases, the district court correctly cited Barnett Brothers v. Wright, 116 Ark. 44, 172 S.W. 254 (1914), for the proposition that extrinsic evidence may be used to show the description is adequate. See also 57 C.J.S., Mechanics' Liens, § 161.
Here, in its answer to the motion to dismiss Arkhola argued that should the court find the description insufficient, it be allowed to offer extrinsic evidence to show the Lancasters owned no other property within the 20 acre tract and the .79 could have been located with certainty and with no possibility that anyone would be misled.
We agree with Arkhola to the extent that it could have pled further to show by extrinsic evidence the description was sufficient. Arkhola's deficiency was failure to state a claim and the trial court did not look beyond the pleadings to reach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orr v. Hudson
...further after the appeal of the granting of a motion to dismiss appears to be found in the case of Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hutchinson, 291 Ark. 570, 726 S.W.2d 674 (1987) (Arkhola II ). In Arkhola, the plaintiff-appellant, Arkhola, a supplier of sand and gravel, attempted to sue on a m......
-
Arkansas Deq v. Brighton Corp.
...he or she waives the right to plead further, and the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. See Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hutchinson, 291 Ark. 570, 726 S.W.2d 674 (1987). Therefore, the dismissal of DEQ's complaint is modified to be with On cross-appeal, the defendants argue that th......
-
Yeager v. Nat'l Pub. Radio
... ... United Air Lines, ... Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal ... 1979)); see ... also Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC , 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 ... (D.C ... to one with prejudice. See Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co ... v. Hutchinson , 291 ... ...
-
Holbrook v. Healthport, Inc.
...no matter how often it is repeated. This is especially true with regard to how we construe our rules. In Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hutchinson, 291 Ark. 570, 726 S.W.2d 674 (1987), this court struggled to reconcile the two phrases and eventually announced that it was not sufficient to fol......
-
Chapter 10 Arkansas Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Liens
...but the decree must have a complete and accurate description. In Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., Div. of Apac-Arkansas, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 291 Ark. 570, 726 S.W.2d 674 (1987), the court held that a description of property in a foreclosure action which did not specify where in a 20-acre tract th......