Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a mechanic’s lien claimant or the claimant’s agent may personally serve a mechanic’s lien statement under Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1(2). The court held that Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02, which requires service of a summons or other process by a nonparty, does not apply because a mechanic’s lien statement is not process and does not commence a court action. The court also held that the statute’s requirement of personal service does not restrict who may perform the service, and affirmed the judgment foreclosing the liens.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.02, which generally requires service of a summons or other process by a person who is not a party to the action, applies to service of a mechanic's lien statement under Minnesota Statutes section 514.08, subdivision 1(2).
- Whether the phrase "served personally" in Minnesota Statutes section 514.08, subdivision 1(2), requires personal service by a disinterested nonparty rather than by an agent of the lien claimant.
Holdings
- Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.02 does not govern service of a mechanic's lien statement because the statement is not a summons or other process and its filing and service do not commence a court action.
- The phrase "served personally" in Minnesota Statutes section 514.08, subdivision 1(2), requires actual delivery of the lien statement but does not restrict who may make the delivery; therefore, a lien claimant's agent may personally serve the statement.
Key quotations
“In sum, we hold that the requirement in Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02 that service of “a summons or other process” be made by someone who is “not a party to the action” is not applicable to service of a mechanic’s lien statement under Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1(2).” (814 N.W.2d at 700)
“Because the common definition of personal service requires only actual delivery of the notice and does not restrict who may make personal service, we hold that service of the mechanic’s lien statements by Hunter was proper.” (814 N.W.2d at 703)
Factual background
Wing-Heng, Inc. owned a hotel renovation project financed by Briekwell Community Bank and secured by two mortgages. Hunter Construction and Verde performed work on the project and filed mechanic's lien statements, which Ken Hunter personally delivered to Wing-Heng's owner and on-site project manager. Briekwell argued that Hunter's service was invalid because Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.02 requires service of a summons or other process by a nonparty. The district court credited the evidence of personal service and awarded liens to Hunter Construction and Verde.
Procedural history
The district court found that Ken Hunter personally served the mechanic's lien statements on the property owner and the owner's on-site project manager, ruled that the service was proper, and awarded mechanic's liens to Hunter Construction and Verde. Briekwell appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.