Hamel v. American Continental Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-150,85-150 |
| Citation | 713 P.2d 1152 |
| Parties | Michael HAMEL, Daniel L. Cashman, Robert W. Zumbo, Bruce Schoeneberg, Charles Moran, Leon W. Shayler, Charles Frakes, Karl W. Sherman, Brett Deschenes, Roy T. Webb, David Thompson, Rick Gonzales, Robert de Castro, Alfred J. Tennant, Larry Timothy Largent, James G. Largent, Randy H. Schoeneberg, Kevin C. Keller, Larry T. Vanover, Richard L. Jolley, Leonard G. Holland, Russell G. Fields, Jeffrey J. Payne, Victor L. Fagerstone, Appellants (Plaintiffs), Jim Clark, Rickie O. Phillips, and Kelly Webster, (Plaintiffs), v. AMERICAN CONTINENTAL CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, and Medema Homes of Utah, Inc., a Utah corporation, Appellees (Defendants), Patrick Earl Glaspie, d/b/a Western Comfort Builders, (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Bernard E. Cole and Douglas J. Moench, Jr. of Cole & Moench, Cheyenne, for appellants.
Edwin H. Whitehead of Urbigkit, Whitehead, Zunker & Davidson, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellee American Continental Corp.
Before THOMAS, C.J., BROWN, CARDINE and MACY, JJ., and RAPER, J., Retired.
RAPER, Justice, Retired.
The district court, on motion, dismissed a mechanic's lien foreclosure action brought by the 24 appellants, employees of Patrick Earl Glaspie, d/b/a Western Comfort Builders (Glaspie), discharged in bankruptcy. Glaspie had contracted to do work for American Continental Corporation (American), d/b/a/ Medema Homes, appellee owner, on the land of American.
Appellants set out the issues to be:
American clarifies and restates the issues to be:
We will affirm.
Appellants were employed by Glaspie. Glaspie initiated federal "Chapter Seven" bankruptcy proceedings. Unpaid appellants were stayed by the bankruptcy court from initiating any proceedings against Glaspie to collect wages due from Glaspie. Glaspie was eventually discharged from bankruptcy on May 7, 1984. The district court mechanic's lien foreclosure action was filed on May 23, 1984, 183 days after the recording of statements of mechanic's lien with the Laramie County clerk on November 22, 1983. W.S. 29-2-109 mandates that:
Since 1901, as in Wyman v. Quayle, 9 Wyo. 326, 63 P. 988 (1901), this Court has taken the position there enunciated that a mechanic's lien is a creature of statute, and however equitable the lien claim may be, it does not exist unless the one claiming the lien shows substantial compliance with all the essential requirements of the statute. Lien laws are strictly construed, and their scope cannot be extended. Cities Service Oil Company v. Pubco Petroleum Corporation, Wyo., 497 P.2d 1368 (1972); Arch Sellery, Inc. v. Simpson, Wyo., 346 P.2d 1068 (1959). It is essential that there be exact compliance with the time limits fixed by statute, Tottenhoff v. Rocky Mountain Construction Company, Inc., Wyo., 609 P.2d 464 (1980), severe as that may seem to be on occasion. See also Peters v. Dona, 49 Wyo. 306, 54 P.2d 817 (1936).
There is no question then that unless appellants' position is correct that the stay by the bankruptcy court, as to Glaspie's indebtedness to appellants for wages, tolled the 180-day requirement for filing a foreclosure action against the owner, appellants have no lien. We are convinced that the mandatory limit was not tolled. American was not a party to the bankruptcy proceeding of Glaspie, nor was American's property subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.
Appellants somehow reason that the contractor, Glaspie, was an indispensable party to an action to foreclose their liens against the owner. It is urged that since they had been stayed by the bankruptcy court from proceeding against Glaspie or his property in any fashion for wages and Glaspie was an indispensable party, they could not sue American to foreclose during the period prior to discharge on May 7, 1984. No viable authority for such a position is cited.
One of the premises essential to sustain such a position, even if valid otherwise, must fall. A contractor is not an indispensable party to a lien foreclosure unless the owner of the property subject to lien wants him joined. In True v. Hi-Plains Elevator Machinery, Inc., Wyo., 577 P.2d 991, 1005 (1978), citing Becker v. Hopper, 22 Wyo 237, 138 P. 179, Ann.Cas.1916D 1041 (1914), aff'd on reh. 23 Wyo. 209, 147 P. 1085, Ann.Cas.1918B 35 (1915), in construing the predecessor to W.S. 29-2-108 1 substantially unchanged, this Court said that this section was incorporated in the lien laws for the owner's protection, and the owner has a clear right to insist that the contractor be made a party. The contractor is a necessary party only in the sense that the owner may require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cordova v. Gosar
...(1986). Davis v. City of Casper, Wyo., 710 P.2d 827 (1985); Venson Ford v. Madia, Wyo., 480 P.2d 101 (1971); Hamel v. American Continental Corporation, Wyo., 713 P.2d 1152 (1986). Under present pleading strictures, the Gosar complaint is obviously sufficient. Stage Two: procedural sufficien......
-
Diamond Hill Inv. Co. v. Shelden
...stay is limited to actions against debtors and does not include actions against nonbankrupt co-defendants. Hamel v. American Continental Corporation, 713 P.2d 1152 (Wyo.1986); Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1986); Fortier v. Dona Anna Pl......
-
Miller v. State
...order as to the contractor did not toll or deter foreclosure proceedings against the purchaser and lender, Hamel v. American Continental Corporation, Wyo., 713 P.2d 1152 (1986), but no foreclosure actions were In the brief trial, only one lien claimant testified. The plumbing contractor sta......
-
KM Upstream, LLC v. Elkhorn Contr., Inc.
...747 F.2d 1324, 1329–30 (10th Cir.1984); Diamond Hill Inv. Co. v. Shelden, 767 P.2d 1005, 1010 (Wyo.1989); Hamel v. Am. Continental Corp., 713 P.2d 1152, 1154 (Wyo.1986); 2 Howard J. Steinberg, Bankruptcy Litigation § 12:13 (2d ed. 2008); 9B Am.Jur.2d Bankruptcy § 1747 (2006). [¶ 15] It must......