Ridge Erection Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75--347,75--347
• Citation: 549 P.2d 408,37 Colo.App. 477
• Parties: RIDGE ERECTION CO., Plaintiff, v. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Fred Johansson & Associates et al., Defendants, Trustees of the Colorado Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship Trust Fund et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Fred JOHANSSON, Individually, and Harold Baumgartner, Individually, Third-Party Defendants. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 408

549 P.2d 408

37 Colo.App. 477

RIDGE ERECTION CO., Plaintiff, v. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Fred Johansson & Associates et al., Defendants,

Trustees of the Colorado Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship

Trust Fund et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants.

MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Fred JOHANSSON, Individually, and Harold Baumgartner, Individually, Third-Party Defendants.

No. 75--347.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

April 8, 1976.

Rovira, DeMuth & Eiberger, J. Walter Hyer, III, John L. Traylor, Denver, for defendant-appellee, third-party plaintiff.

Gorsuch, Kirgis, Campbell, Walker & Grover, Pamela M. Martin, Denver, for defendants-intervenors-appellants.

COYTE, Judge.

The appellants herein are the trustees of various express trusts established to provide health and welfare, pension, education and training, vacation and similar benefits to the trusts' beneficiaries, which beneficiaries include workmen who performed labor in the construction of improvements on real property owned by appellee, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company (Mountain Bell). They appeal from an adverse summary judgment entered following a trial to the court on their mechanics' lien claims. We affirm.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: Fred Johansson & Associates executed a contract with Mountain Bell, as the owner, to construct improvements on real property. Johansson subsequently entered into contracts with several subcontractors whereby he agreed to pay for labor and materials furnished by them for the project. In conjunction therewith, he further entered into three collective bargaining agreements, an interim building construction agreement with the Carpenters District Council of Denver and vicinity, the 1972--1975 statewide laborers building construction agreement, and the 1972--1975 Colorado cement masons building construction agreement. Each of the collective bargaining agreements incorporated by reference the provisions of certain trust agreements by the terms of which labor and management had agreed to establish trust funds for beneficial purposes.

As a signatory to the collective bargaining contracts, Johansson was obligated to make monthly payments to the trustees at the rates specified in each contract for each and every hour spent by each Johansson employee in the performance of labor described in the particular contract; and, by virtue of these interlocking agreements, the trustees of the separate funds were empowered to enforce these contributions from Johansson & Associates.

After making some payments to his subcontractors and to the trustees of the several trust funds, Johansson defaulted on payments to the trustees of the various funds for contributions owing for labor performed on the project by employees subject to the collective bargaining agreements and abandoned the construction project on October 25, 1973. Thereafter, several subcontractors filed mechanics' liens against the subject property and brought an action to foreclose these liens.

All of the trustees had recorded a lien statement on May 15, 1974, and an amended lien statement on June 25, 1974. Based on these filings, the trustees of the eleven labor employee trusts moved the court for an order permitting them to intervene in the foreclosure action. They prayed for a judgment directing that 'Intervening Defendants have a first lien, in the amount of $14,097.67 plus recording costs, interest, and the costs of this action.'

Mountain Bell filed an answer to the claim of the trustees and then filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavits, against the trustees, contending that 1) the trustees lacked standing to assert a mechanic's lien under the appropriate statutory provisions, and, 2) that even if the trustees could claim such a lien, they had failed to file their lien statement within the period prescribed by statute. Accordingly, even though the record does not reveal any affirmative action by the trial court on the motion of the trustees, we will treat the trustees as properly before the court.

While the trustees attack all of the arguments urged by Mountain Bell as a basis for the entry of summary judgment, we need consider but one of them since it is dispositive of the case. Mountain Bell contends that unpaid fringe benefit contributions are not a part of the value of 'labor done' for which a lien may be claimed under § 38--22--101(1), C.R.S.1973. We agree with this contention and it is therefore dispositive of the trustees' attack on the judgment.

Since the underlying principle of our mechanics' lien law is to prevent unjust enrichment, it is usually liberally construed in favor of lien claimants, 3190 Corp. v. Gould, 1963 Colo. 356, 431 P.2d 466; but the statutory remedy cannot be judicially extended so as to be applied to cases which do not fall within its provisions. Chambers v. Nation, 178 Colo. 124, 497 P.2d 5. And, where the object of a statute is to charge the property of one with the debt of another, persons claiming its benefits must bring themselves clearly within its purview as belonging to some class in whose favor the remedy is allowed. C & W Electric, Inc. v. Casa Dorado Corp., 34 Colo.App. 117, 523 P.2d 137.

The trustees argue that fringe benefit contributions are a component of the laborer's compensation negotiated under collective bargaining agreements and are therefore necessarily included in the definition of 'value of labor' for which a lien is granted under § 38--22--101(1), C.R.S.1973, to a person who has performed such labor. They buttress their argument by focusing on the fact that the statute does not limit the right of lien to 'wages' or any other restrictive term and hence they conclude that the language 'value of labor done' is broad enought to include all elements of the laborer's compensation. We disagree.

Section 38--22--101(1), C.R.S.1973, provides that:

'Every person who supplies machinery, tools, or equipment in the prosecution of the work, and mechanics, materialmen, contractors, subcontractors, builders, and all persons of every class performing labor upon . . . shall have a lien upon the property upon which they have . . . bestowed labor . . . for the value of such . . . labor done . . .'

In general then, this...