L. Waldo & Associates, Inc. v. PVO Foods, Inc., 62484

• Decision Date: 11 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 62484,62484
• Citation: 852 S.W.2d 424
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: L. WALDO & ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PVO FOODS, INC./PVO Foods (Central), Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Page 424

852 S.W.2d 424

L. WALDO & ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PVO FOODS, INC./PVO Foods (Central), Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

No. 62484.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Seven.

May 11, 1993.

Chused, Bini, Kohn, Feldmann & Steib, P.J., W. William Protell, Jr., St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bryan Cave by John S. Meyer, Jr. and Cheryl D. Smith, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

KAROHL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, L. Waldo and Associates, Inc., sued PVO Foods Inc., the parent corporation of PVO Foods (Central) Inc., the owner of the real estate in question and Mississippi Valley Edible Oil Company, Inc. [Mississippi Valley], tenant of PVO Foods (Central), Inc., to enforce a contract with Mississippi Valley and to impress a mechanics lien. After summary judgment was entered in favor of PVO Foods, Inc. and PVO Foods (Central), Inc., a default judgment was entered against Mississippi Valley. L. Waldo and Associates appeal the summary judgments. We affirm.

In September 1989, PVO (Central) leased the property in question to Mississippi Valley. Mississippi Valley contracted with L. Waldo and Associates [Waldo] to perform work on the leased property as a subcontractor. When a billing to Mississippi Valley for $20,901.22 for material and labor was not paid, Waldo timely filed a mechanics lien. Waldo then filed a petition to collect the bill and secure payment through a mechanic's lien. Defendants PVO Foods and PVO (Central) petitioned for and were granted summary judgment because the lien statement was insufficient as a matter of law.

On appeal, plaintiff argues the entry of summary judgment was improper because discovery was incomplete and the court did not have all the necessary facts. However, the claim of error is directed only at a pure question of law, a matter of statutory interpretation on an existing documentary fact. We find defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm.

In reviewing the entry of summary judgment, we ordinarily must determine if any genuine issue of material fact exists which would require a trial and determine if the judgment is correct as a matter of law. Meyer v. Enoch, 807 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Mo.App.1991). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record discloses no theory that would permit recovery and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Y.G. v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 488, 494 (Mo.App.1990). Appellate and trial courts must view the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for judgment. Erickson v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 797 S.W.2d 853, 857 (Mo.App.1990).

To survive a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff, a subcontractor, must show its mechanics lien met the requirements of § 429.080 RSMo 1986. In order to comply, it must file "a just and true account of the demand due him or them." "The requirement of a just and true account calls for a fairly itemized account, showing what the materials are, and the work that was done, and the price charged." Bresnan v. Basic Elec. Co., 721 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo.App.1986). Itemization is necessary in order to provide landowners the opportunity to investigate the charges. Id.

L. Waldo and Associates, Inc. did not file an itemized account in the form required by the lien statute. The invoices attached to the lien filing were in the following form:

Partial billing for labor and material for services provided on site of PVO Foods, Inc...