J. W. Copeland Yards v. Taranoff
| Decision Date | 13 May 1964 |
| Citation | 238 Or. 167,392 P.2d 259 |
| Parties | J. W. COPELAND YARDS, Appellant, v. Peter L. TARANOFF, Anna Taranoff, V. A. Eakins, Calvin H. Heslop, dba Multi-Metal, Maurice Jarmer and Watters Concrete Products, Marvin D. Babcock and Joe Crowder, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Donald L. Kalberer, St. Helens, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Hjelte & Kalberer, St. Helens.
James B. Griswold, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Peter L. Taranoff and Anna Taranoff. With him on the brief were Green, Richardson, Green & Griswold, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and LUSK, JJ.
This is an appeal by plaintiff, J. W. Copeland Yards, from a decree in favor of the defendants Peter L. and Anna Taranoff invalidating a materialmen's lien against real property owned by the defendants. The other defendants listed in the title of the case are not involved in this appeal.
The suit was instituted to establish and foreclose a lien for building materials supplied to a building contractor for the construction of a dwelling house on the Taranoff's property. The building materials valued at approximately $4000 were supplied by the plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the business of selling lumber and other building materials. No payment was made by the contractor for any of the materials.
In December 1959 the Taranoffs entered into a contract with Marvin D. Babcock, a building contractor, for the construction of a house on the real property they owned in Columbia City, Oregon. The contract price for construction of the dwelling was $16,000. Although Babcock did not complete the construction he was paid a total of $14,883.10 by the Taranoffs.
During the construction of the Taranoff house Babcock ordered materials from the plaintiff's lumber yard in St. Helens. Plaintiff commenced delivery of these materials on January 4, 1960, and made the last delivery May 9, 1960. Babcock had previously purchased lumber and other materials from the plaintiff for construction work in the Columbia City area, and it was his practice to pay for the materials on completion of the construction project. As indicated above, no payment was made by Babcock for any of the materials supplied for use in the Taranoff house.
The manager of plaintiff's yard in St. Helens sent notices of commencement of delivery of material and of intention to claim a lien for the materials. The notices, one addressed to Peter L. Taranoff, and the other to Anna Taranoff, were sent by certified mail on January 12, 1960, eight days after the first delivery of material.
In June of 1960 the plaintiff filed a materialmen's lien against the Taranoffs' property. The trial judge found the lien was valid in all respects and would be enforceable but for the failure of plaintiff to have given a proper notice of commencement of delivery of materials. The trial court's conclusions of law state:
'The notice prescribed by ORS 87.020(1) was sent by plaintiff one day later than authorized by the ORS section, and that because of this, the plaintiff's lien must fail.'
The mechanics and materialmen's lien was unknown to the common law and exists in our jurisdiction by the grace of statute. In determining the criterion for impressing such a lien, we must look to the statute. The purpose of the materialmen's lien law is to afford effective security to suppliers who furnish building materials. The law should be construed as favorably as its terms will legitimately permit to the end of advancing such purpose. But the materialman has a duty to show substantial compliance with the statute before he can invoke its aid to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Layrite Products Co. v. Lux
...19, 20; Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 400 P.2d 707 (1965); J.W. Copeland Yards v. Taranoff, 238 Or. 167, 392 P.2d 259 (1964). See also Dawson v. Eldredge, 89 Idaho 402, 405 P.2d 754; Boone v. P & B Logging Company, 88 Idaho 111, 397 P.2d 31......
-
Wallis v. Crook County School Dist.
...(1906); Nicolai-Neppach Co. v. Poore et al., 120 Or. 163, 251 P. 268 (1926) (Partially overruled on other grounds Copeland Yards v. Taranoff, 238 Or. 167, 392 P.2d 259 (1964)). Taking up the second question, during the trial of this case defendant urged upon the trial court the following pr......
-
Dolder v. Griffin, 81-1254.
...court found a materialman not to have preserved his lien because the prelien notice was delivered one day late. J. W. Copeland Yards v. Taranoff, 238 Or. 167, 392 P.2d 259 (1964). Some lien claimants argue that the appellants would have done nothing differently at the closing had they recei......
-
Matter of Stanfield
...The general rule is that absent a direct contract with the owner the failure to give a prelien notice is fatal. J.W. Copeland Yards v. Taranoff (1964) 238 Or. 167, 392 P.2d 259. The mechanic's lien statutes are structured so as to provide the owner and those providing labor and material wit......
-
Chapter § 33.3 ISSUES UNIQUE TO GROUND LEASES
...Co. v. Poore, 120 Or 163, 177, 251 P 268 (1926), overruled in part on other grounds by J. W. Copeland Yards v. Taranoff, 238 Or 167, 392 P2d 259 (1964). Due to the risk of construction liens, the landlord should always verify the adequacy of the tenant's financing for the project and, if ne......