Mitchell Engineering Co. v. Summit Realty Co., WD

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtTURNAGE
Citation620 S.W.2d 27
PartiesMITCHELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMMIT REALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendant-Respondent. 32050.
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
Decision Date16 June 1981

Ronald R. McMillin, Carson, Monaco, Coil, Riley and McMillin, P. C., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gordon R. Gaebler, Svoboda & Gaebler, P. C., Kansas City, for defendant-respondent.



Mitchell Engineering Company filed suit to enforce a mechanic's lien against property owned by Summit Realty Company. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Summit on a motion for summary judgment. On this appeal the sole question concerns the sufficiency of the lien statement filed by Mitchell. Reversed and remanded.

Summit entered into a contract with Trans-Missouri Builders 1 as general contractors for the construction of the Summit Plaza Center, apparently a shopping center. Trans-Missouri entered into a contract with Mitchell and on the failure of Trans-Missouri to pay the total price, Mitchell filed a suit against Trans-Missouri for the balance due and against Summit for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien previously filed.

The lien statement filed by Mitchell described the material furnished in three documents. The first of these is a copy of an invoice indicating that Mitchell had sold to Trans-Missouri "Mitchell prefabricated steel buildings" for a contract price of $72,816.46 with change order number one adding $678.54, resulting in a total contract price of $73,540. With the sales tax added the total price was $75,838.12. A credit was shown of $7,286.15 leaving a balance due of $68,551.97. This document indicated the buildings had been shipped to Holt's Summit Shopping Center in two shipments on October 3, 1978, and October 4, 1978. The dimensions of the three buildings was given.

Another document attached to the lien statement appears to be a copy of a proposal made by Mitchell and accepted by Trans-Missouri. This contains some abbreviations on a printed form which are undoubtedly common to industry use. It does give the dimensions of the three buildings with the type and gauge of material to be used for sheeting and flashing, together with the following statement:

"SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Heavy building to support 19-500 # roof top A/C units. All of the above three (3) buildings to be joined end to end, with common high sidewall, to make one (1) complete building 257' long. High sidewall to be open to eave line for masonry and glass as shown on Architectural Plans. The two (2) rigid frame columns on low sidewalls of 125' wide area to extend 4'-3 below main finish floor elevation. All other columns of 125' wide area to be at main finish floor elevation. Endwall girts on both ends of 125' wide area to be flush girts. 88 lin. ft. of masonry fire wall, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Mitchell Engineering Co., A Div. of Ceco Corp. v. Summit Realty Co., Inc., WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 21, 1982
    ...court reversed the trial court and remanded the Page 134 case for further proceedings. Mitchell Engineering Company v. Summit Realty Co., 620 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1981). In that ruling, this court characterized Mitchell as a sub-contractor and further held, relative to the sufficiency of Mitch......
  • Norman v. Ballentine, 42189
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 29, 1981
    ...that the work billed was actually done and that the charges were appropriate. See Mitchell Engineering Co. v. Summit Realty Co., 620 S.W.2d 27, 29(1) (Mo.App.1981); Cork Plumbing Co. v. Martin Bloom Associates, 573 S.W.2d 947, 959 (Mo.App.1978). Sharon does not dispute that the labor was do......
  • Grgic v. Cochran, 51531
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 27, 1987
    ...was actually performed." Id. Grgic argues his lien statement is sufficient, relying on Mitchell Engineering Co. v. Summit Realty Co., 620 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1981) and S & R Builders & Suppliers, Inc. v. Marler, 610 S.W.2d 690 (Mo.App.1980). The lien statements in these cases, however, differ......
  • Commercial Openings, Inc. v. Mathews, 73608
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 19, 1991
    ...investigation. See, e.g., Meek Lumber Co. of Branson v. Cantrell, 813 S.W.2d 936 (Mo.App.1991); Mitchell Eng'g Co. v. Summit Realty Co., 620 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1981). If the owner cannot determine from the lien statement what materials were provided by the subcontractor, the owner is without......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT