Berglund v. Wright

• Decision Date: 15 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22118.,22118.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: BERGLUND & PETERSON v. WRIGHT et al.

148 Minn. 412

182 N.W. 624

BERGLUND & PETERSON

v.WRIGHT et al.

No. 22118.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 15, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Wm. A. Cant, Judge.

Action by Berglund & Peterson against Earl Wright and others. Judgment for plaintiffs against defendant named alone, and from the denial of a new trial, he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Improvements cannot be charged as a lien against land unless made with the consent of the owner.

But the Legislature may provide that an owner who fails to disclaim responsibility for improvements made with his knowledge shall be deemed to have authorized them.

The interest of a part owner may be subjected to a lien for the entire cost of improvements made at his instance or with his consent.

The statute (Gen. St. 1913, § 7024) provides, in effect, that all persons, except incumbrancers, having an interest in land shall be deemed to have authorized improvements made thereon with their knowledge, ‘in so far as to subject their interests to liens therefor,’ unless they shall disclaim responsibility for such improvements in the prescribed manner.

The purpose of the statute is to protect laborers and materialmen and it should be liberally construed to accomplish that purpose.

The lien is founded on the duty which, under the statute, the owner owes to laborers and materialmen.

Where only one of several part owners knows that an improvement is being made and he fails to disclaim responsibility therefor, his interest in the land may be charged with a lien for the entire improvement. Alford, Hunt & McBean, of Duluth, for appellant.

Warner E. Whipple and Frank E. Randall, both of Duluth, for respondents.

TAYLOR, C.

This action was brought to enforce mechanic's liens against a certain lot in the city of Duluth. The owners of the lot are Sarah A. Wright, Jessie Wright James, Earl Wright and Fred R. Wright. Sarah A. Wright owns an undivided one-third of the lot and each of the others an undivided two-ninths thereof. In 1909 the four joint owners executed a ground lease of the lot to Leon Abram for a term of nearly 100 years and sold him the building thereon. In 1917 Abram made extensive improvements in the building, and the liens in question were filed for work performed and material furnished in making these improvements. Before the trial Abram had been adjudged a bankrupt, and his ground lease had been canceled and annulled. The trial court found and determined the respective amounts due the several lien claimants, and further found that defendant Earl Wright had actual knowledge of the making of the improvements and neither gave nor posted any notice that they were not made at his instance, and further found that the other fee owners had no knowledge of the making of the improvements. As conclusions of law the court held that the several lien claimants were entitled to liens on the interest of defendant Earl Wright in the property for the full amount of their respective claims, but were not entitled to liens on the interest of any of the other fee owners. Defendant Earl Wright made a motion for a new trial and appeals from the order denying it. He will be designated as defendant hereinafter.

Defendant's counsel state in their brief:

‘The court below charged Earl Wright's two-ninths interest with the entire nine-ninths of this lien. Appellant, Earl Wright, concedes that his interest is subject to a two-ninths part of this lien, but denies that it is subject to the other seven-ninths. This is the question which is raised, in the last analysis, by all the assignments of error. Hence we will not deal with the assignments of error separately but will discuss this one issue.’

They contend that if the entire cost of the improvement is enforced against defendant's undivided two-ninths interest in the property it will result in taking his property without due process of law, and present a forceful argument in support of their contention.

[4] The statute provides:

‘When improvements are made by one person upon the land of another, all persons interested therein otherwise than as bona fide prior incumbrancers or lienors shall be deemed to have authorized such improvements, in so far as to subject their interests to liens therefor. But any person who has not authorized the same may protect his interest from such liens by serving upon the persons doing work or otherwise contributing to such improvements, 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.’ G. S. 1913, § 7024.

[2] It is well settled that improvements made by one person on the land of another cannot be charged as a lien against the land unless the improvements were made at the instance or with the consent of the landowner. Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 358, 20 N. W. 354;Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438, 40 N. W. 513,1 L. R. A. 777, 12 Am. St. Rep. 663;Bardwell v. Mann. 46 Minn. 285, 48 N. W. 1120;Wheaton v. Berg, 50 Minn. 525,52 N. W. 923. 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. Martin Lumber Co. v. Howard, 49 Minn. 404, 52 N. W. 34;Wheaton v. Berg, 50 Minn. 525, 52 N. W. 926;Congdon v. Cook, 55 Minn. 1, 56 N. W. 253;Northwestern L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 125 Minn. 107, 145 N. W. 964.

Defendant knew the improvements in question were being made and did not give or post the notice provided for by the statute. He concedes that under these circumstances the statute creates a lien against his undivided two-ninths interest in the property, but contends that the statute cannot create a lien against this interest for the entire cost of the improvements, but only for the two-ninths part thereof which inured to this interest. In support of this contention he argues that liens for improvements made without express authority of the landowner can only be sustained on the theory that the improvements become a part of, and are beneficial to,...