Walker Supply Co., Inc. v. Corinth Community Development, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1974
• Citation: 509 S.W.2d 514
• Parties: WALKER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellee, v. CORINTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 514

509 S.W.2d 514

WALKER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellee, v. CORINTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section.

Jan. 29, 1974 Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court May 6, 1974.

W. J. Reynolds, Selmer, for appellants.

James A. Hopper, Savannah, for appellee.

NEARN, Judge.

This appeal is by the defendant from the Decree of the Chancery Court of Hardin County. In the complained of Decree the Chancellor held that the plaintiff, a furnisher of building materials, had a valid mechanic's or furnisher's lien on the defendant owner's property.

The facts of the matter are not in real dispute, it is the Chancellor's interpretation of the applicable statute that is called into play by this appeal.

Defendant Corinth Community Development, Inc. is the owner of the certain building lots in Hardin County. The defendant Development Company agreed with one Jerry Phillips as general contractor, to construct homes on six of the lots or parcels owned by the defendant Development Company. The lots in question were not contiguous. Phillips, in turn, agreed with the plaintiff that plaintiff was to furnish certain building materials for the project. There was no contract between plaintiff, Walker Supply Company and the defendant Development Company.

For reasons immaterial to this Opinion, work ceased prior to completion of the six houses for which Walker was furnishing material. Plaintiff had not been paid for all of its materials furnished for the construction. Consequently, plaintiff, by certified mail, notified the defendant owner that a lien was claimed for the unpaid amounts. Simultaneously with the mailing of the notice, plaintiff filed a sworn notice of lien in the Register's Office of Hardin County.

The notice filed in the Register's Office did not apportion the unpaid balance between the several, non-contiguous lots, but was a 'blanket' lien on the six lots involved known as 'Lots 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 31 of the Bellemeade Subdivision'.

The notice to the owner was mailed and notice was filed in the Register's Office on September 19, 1972, and suit was filed and attachment levied within ninety days thereof, on November 27, 1972.

Default judgment was taken against the contractor, Jerry Phillips. Non-suits have been taken as to various other of the original defendants. Other lien holders yet remain as defendants, but by stipulation of the parties and agreement of the Chancellor, the sole issue determined was whether or not Walker Supply Company possessed a lien on the property of Community Development Company. The question of the priority of liens as between other lienors has been left for determination at some future hearing. Therefore, this matter will be treated as if there were no other parties or dispute but that between Walker and Community Development.

It is the position of the appellant that § 64--1118 T.C.A. is applicable to this case and that the Code section requires the notice filed in the Register's Office show an apportionment of the unpaid balance due between the various lots on which the lien is claimed. Since the notice does not apportion as required by the statute, the notice was ineffective to perfect the lien. Therefore, the suit could not be maintained as the plaintiff had not complied with an absolute prerequisite of suit.

Section 64--1118 T.C.A. provides as follows:

'Claim against more than one improvement.--Where the amount due is for labor performed or materials furnished for more than one (1) improvement on a single lot, parcel, or tract of land, or for a single improvement on contiguous or adjacent lots, parcels, or tracts of land, or for more than one (1) improvement to be operated as a single plant, but located on separate lots, parcels, or tracts of land, and made or to be made in each case under the same direct contract or contracts, a lienor shall be required to file only one (1) claim of lien covering his entire demand against such real property. If two (2) or more lots, parcels, or tracts of land are improved under the same direct contract or contracts and the improvements are not to be operated as a single plant, a lienor who has performed labor or furnished materials therefor shall, in claiming a lien, apportion his contract price between the several lots, parcels, or tracts of land and improvements thereon and file a separate claim of lien for the amount demanded against each lot, parcel, or tract of land and the improvements thereon. In such latter case proof of delivery, at the order of the purchaser, to any of such lots, of materials to be used in one (1) or more of such improvements shall, prima facie, be...