Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand, 283 Kan. 911

157 P.3d 1109 (2007) · Supreme Court of Kansas · May 4, 2007 · No. No. 96,391

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed a mechanic's lien foreclosure dispute involving Owen Lumber Company and property owners Arthur and Carol Chartrand. The court held that the lien notice requirements were satisfied under the statutory savings provision, rejected the Chartrands' proposed limitation on lien liability under K.S.A. 60-1103(d), and addressed related issues concerning prejudgment interest and trial fairness. The appeal followed two prior decisions in the same case.

Holdings

  1. The statutory savings provision in K.S.A. 60-1103(c) was satisfied because the Chartrands actually received a copy of the mechanic's lien statement attached to Owen Lumber's properly served 1997 foreclosure petition. The statute did not permit proof of service merely through a presumption of receipt from first-class mailing where restricted-mail service was required, but actual receipt independently satisfied the savings provision.
  2. K.S.A. 60-1103(d) did not limit the amount of the mechanic's lien under the facts of this case.
  3. The district court properly awarded prejudgment interest because the mechanic's-lien claim was liquidated and ascertainable by mathematical calculation, notwithstanding the parties' dispute over liability and offsets.
  4. The Chartrands failed to prove that dual representation by the attorneys for Owen Lumber and other defendants deprived them of a fair trial or justified equitable estoppel based on unclean hands.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Owen Lumber properly served the Chartrands with the mechanic's lien statement under K.S.A. 60-1103(c), including whether the statutory savings provision applied based on actual receipt.
  2. Whether K.S.A. 60-1103(d) limited the Chartrands' liability on the mechanic's lien.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding prejudgment interest.
  4. Whether the Chartrands were denied a fair trial or whether Owen Lumber was barred by unclean hands or equitable estoppel because the same attorneys represented Owen Lumber and other defendants.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (23)

  • Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand, 270 Kan. 215, 14 P.3d 395 (2000)(followed and applied)
  • Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand, 276 Kan. 218, 73 P.3d 753 (2003)(followed and applied)
  • Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fleischer, 257 Kan. 360, 369, 892 P.2d 497 (1995)(followed)
  • Scott v. Strickland, 10 Kan. App. 2d 14, 20, 691 P.2d 45 (1984)(followed)
  • Foster v. Kansas Department of Revenue, 281 Kan. 368, 374, 130 P.3d 560 (2006)(followed)
  • U.S.D. No. 233 v. Kansas Association of American Educators, 275 Kan. 313, 318, 64 P.3d 372 (2003)(followed)
  • Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 177, 83 P.3d 214 (2004)(followed)
  • Shriver v. National Bank, 117 Kan. 638, 649, 232 P. 1062 (1925)(distinguished)
  • State v. Thrash, 267 Kan. 715, Syl. ¶ 4, 987 P.2d 345 (1999)(distinguished)
  • Kopp's Rug Co. v. Talbot, 5 Kan. App. 2d 565, 567, 620 P.2d 1167 (1980)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…