Shelby Contracting Co. v. Pizitz
Decision Date | 12 February 1970 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 279 |
Citation | 231 So.2d 743,285 Ala. 301 |
Parties | SHELBY CONTRACTING CO., Inc., a Corp. v. Harold PIZITZ et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bell, Richardson, Cleary, McLain & Tucker and James H. Porter, Huntsville, for appellant.
Speir, Robertson & Jackson, Birmingham, for appellees.
Complainant, a corporation, filed its bill of complaint seeking to establish and enforce a mechanic's lien. The court sustained a demurrer to the bill as amended and complainant moved to dismiss the bill as provided by § 755, Title 7, Code 1940, Act No. 72, approved September 15, 1961; 1961 Acts, Vol. II, page 1947.
From the decree granting complainant's motion to dismiss, complainant appeals. The error complained of is the decree of the court sustaining the demurrer to the bill.
The question for decision is whether the allegations of the bill show that complainant is entitled to enforce a lien, on certain contiguous lots in a subdivision in the City of Huntsville, for labor and material used by complainant to construct improvements on a street of the subdivision on which the lots abut. Complainant states the question as follows:
At the time complainant entered into the contract, the plat of the subdivision had been approved by the engineer of the City of Huntsville, although the dedication of the streets on the plat was not accepted by the city until after complainant had completed its work.
Complainant claims a lien under § 37, Title 33, Code 1940, which recites in part as follows:
Both parties agree that there clearly exists a split of authority among the courts which have considered the question here presented. One court has observed:
'. . . The cases cited by counsel and those we have found are all decided upon the peculiar phraseology of the different statutes passed by the several states. . . .' Seeman v. Schultze, 100 Ga. 603, 604, 605, 28 S.E. 378.
The point on which the decision turns is whether or not an improvement, such as curbing, paving, or pipe, which is actually upon the street, is to be regarded as being upon the lot which abuts on the street.
Our statute (§ 37, Title 33) provides that the mechanic shall have a line '. . . on such building or improvements . . .' and 'on the land on which the same is situated.' Some courts have decided that the street is a part of the abutting lot and that the abutting lot is busject to a mechanic's lien for constructing an improvement on the street.
The Court of Civil Appeals to Texas enforced a lien on an abutting lot for construction of a sidewalk in front of the lot under a contract with the lot owners. The court said:
'But whatever the rule may be in other states, we are of the opinion that, as it is settled in this state that a deed to a lot fronting on a public street and calling for such street, or else describing the lot by reference to a plat which shows that the lot abuts upon the street and was laid out with reference thereto, carries with it a fee-simple title to the center of the street, in the absence of some restriction in the deed, it follows inevitably that an improvement, such as the one in controversy in the present suit, was an improvement upon the entire lot, including that part which fronts upon the street and upon which buildings are erected. . . .' Lewis v. Roach Manigan Paving Co., (Texas Civ.App.), 184 S.W. 680, 681.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas, in holding that a materialman, who has furnished material for building a sidewalk, has a lien on the sidewalk and abutting lot, has this to say:
'. . . Now, while the general public have an easement in sidewalks, and while the municipality controls them for the purpose of preserving this easement, yet the fee, under the law, is in the owner of the land abutting the public streets to the center of the street, and this ownership is absolute, subject only to the rights of the public to enjoy its easement over it, and to the public power of the municipality, as the agent of the public, to preserve this easement or highway. . . .' Leiper v. Minnig, 74 Ark. 510, 515, 86 S.W. 407.
In Laude Contracting Co. v. Land Development Co., (Mo.App.), 337 S.W.2d 578, the action was by a subcontractor to recover from the general contractor for labor and materials and to enforce a mechanic's lien against twelve contiguous residential lots in a subdivision. There were six residences on each side of the street. The subcontractor sought a line against the buildings and the appurtenances, improvements, and land. The subcontractor alleged that the defendant general contractor was the original contractor for the erection of said buildings, appurtenances, and improvements and that the same were erected under one general contract. The St. Louis Court of Appeals held that the petition sufficiently asserted a claim by the subcontractor for a lien against the twelve lots and their owners. In reaching this conclusion, the court quoted from an earlier case, McDermott v. Claas, 104 Mo. 14, 15 S.W. 995, where the court had said:
". . . Appellant owned the land to the center of the street on which his property abutted, subject to the easement in favor of the public. . . ." (337 S.W.2d at 583)
The Supreme Court of New, York, Erie County, in Application of Bradwood Realty Inc., 43 Misc.2d 374, 251 N.Y.S2d 315, quoted at length from the Ladue opinion, supra, and held that a contractor was entitled to a lien for labor and material furnished in a subdivision for paving, storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, street curbing, rock excavation, and a sewer system. Relying on cited cases and the New York statute which provided that the mechanics' lien law should be liberally construed, the court, without stating further reasons, found '. . . that the work done by Respondent constituted an improvement to the lots and appurtenances to them was beneficial to said lots so that the lots were subjected to a mechanic's line for such improvement.' (251 N.Y.S.2d at 318)
All the cases cited by complainant thus appear to rest on the proposition that improvements constructed on the street entitle the mechanic or materialman to a lien because the street is a part of the abutting lot.
Complainant argues that we should follow the holding of the above cited cases because our cases hold that the abutting lot owner owns the fee in the street to the median line thereof, that the dedication of a street grants only an easement in the street and the fee remains in the owner of the abutting lot, citing: Cloverdale Homes v. Town of Cloverdale, 182 Ala. 419, 62 So. 712, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 607; Snead v. Tatum, 247 Ala. 442, 25 So.2d 162; Lybrand v. Town of Pell City, 260 Ala. 534, 71 So.2d 797; Town of Citronelle v. Gulf Oil Corp., 270 Ala. 378, 119 So.2d 180.
Respondents rely on the cases next discussed which hold that a mechanic or materialman is not entitled to a lien on a lot for improvements constructed on an abutting street.
In Coenen & Mentzer v. Staub, 74 Iowa 32, 36 N.W. 877, the plaintiff sought a lien against a lot in front of which he had constructed a sidewalk under a contract with the owner. The court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Orange Beach v. Benjamin
...of Mountain Brook, 653 So.2d 947, 949 (Ala.1995); Johnson v. Morris, 362 So.2d 209, 211 (Ala.1978); Shelby Contracting Co. v. Pizitz, 285 Ala. 301, 309, 231 So.2d 743, 749-50 (1970). The Benjamins do not challenge the validity of the statutory dedication of Gulf Drive, nor do they contend t......
-
Marine v. Entities
...mechanic's lien statute to cover such work. In this respect, the Court finds that this case is not unlike that of Shelby Contracting Co. v. Pizitz, 231 So.2d 743 (Ala.1970). There, a contracting company who constructed a street sought to establish and enforce a mechanic's lien on lots abutt......
-
BEACHCROFT PROPERTIES v. City of Alabaster
...... to lay down sewers, for at the present day there can be no street in a town without sewers...."'" Shelby Contracting Co. v. Pizitz, 285 Ala. 301, 308, 231 So.2d 743, 748-49 (1970) (emphasis added) (quoting Cloverdale Homes v. Town of Cloverdale, 182 Ala. 419, 435, 62 So. 712, 717 (1913)......
-
Kizer v. Finch
...subdivision streets and roadways. Lybrand v. Town of Pell City, 260 Ala. 534, 71 So.2d 797 (1954). See, also, Shelby Contracting Co. v. Pizitz, 285 Ala. 301, 231 So.2d 743 (1970). Because of our holding with respect to the lot owners' motion for summary judgment, and because the lot owners'......
-
Alabama law of dedication and reservation: it's a good thing: Beachcroft Properties, LLP v. City of Alabaster.
...CODE [section] 35-2-51(b) (1975). (154) Beachcroft, 901 So. 2d at 709 (emphasis in original) (quoting Shelby Contracting Co. v. Pizitz, 231 So. 2d 743, 748-49 (Ala. (155) Id. at 709 (citing Oliver, 73 So. 2d at 554). (156) Id. (157) Id. at 710. (158) Nollan, 483 U.S. at 837. (159) Dolan, 51......