lien claim in Montana

1978It is undisputed that plaintiff did not receive full consideration for the lien waiver it executed .. ." In United States v. Shea-Adamson Company (U.S.D.C.Minn. 1937), 21 F. Supp. 831 , the trial court refused to recognize an executed lien waiver unsupported by consideration. *1281 Not to be forgotten is the undisputed evidence also shows Big Sky is holding back from Inland the sum of $115,000.

1978It is undisputed that plaintiff did not receive full consideration for the lien waiver it executed * * *.” In United States v. Shea-Adamson Company (U.S.D.C.Minn.1937), 21 F.Supp. 831 , the trial court refused to recognize an executed lien waiver unsupported by consideration.

2019It is designed to secure for "[a] person who has furnished services or materials pursuant to a real estate improvement contract" payment for the "unpaid part of the person's contract price." Section 71-3-526, MCA. "[I]t is not the contract for erecting or repairing the building which creates the lien, but it is the use of the materials ***197 furnished and the work and labor expended by the contractor" that serves as the basis for the lien. dck Worldwide Holdings , ¶ 17 (quoting Smith v. Gunniss , 115 Mont. 362 , 376, 144 P.2d 186 , 189 (1943) ). ¶25 Despite the equitable nature of lien forecl

2019It is designed to secure for "[a] person who has furnished services or materials pursuant to a real estate improvement contract" payment for the "unpaid part of the person's contract price." Section 71-3-526, MCA. "[I]t is not the contract for erecting or repairing the building which creates the lien, but it is the use of the materials ***197 furnished and the work and labor expended by the contractor" that serves as the basis for the lien. dck Worldwide Holdings , ¶ 17 (quoting Smith v. Gunniss , 115 Mont. 362 , 376, 144 P.2d 186 , 189 (1943) ). ¶25 Despite the equitable nature of lien forecl

1982Arrowhead is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and its costs of suit to be paid by plaintiff Climate Control and court reserves jurisdiction to conduct a hearing to determine such fees.” The issue as to the sufficiency of the affidavit attached to the mechanic’s lien claim is determined by Saunders Cash-Way, etc. v. Herrick (1978), 179 Mont. 233 , 587 P.2d 947 .

1982Arrowhead is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and its costs of suit to be paid by plaintiff Climate Control and court reserves jurisdiction to conduct a hearing to determine such fees.” The issue as to the sufficiency of the affidavit attached to the mechanic’s lien claim is determined by Saunders Cash-Way, etc. v. Herrick (1978), 179 Mont. 233 , 587 P.2d 947 .

1940Co. , 88 Mont. 322 , 292 P. 714 , as sustaining this view.

1940Co. , 88 Mont. 322 , 292 P. 714 , as sustaining this view.

1934Defendants assert that the court erred in admitting the lien claim in evidence because it “did not give the name of the owner or reputed owner of the leasehold” and was therefore invalid. *464 The general rule is that “whenever the particular statute requires the claim to contain the name of the owner or reputed owner, the omission of this detail is fatal to the lien.” (Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, 345, quoted in Missoula Mercantile Co. v. O’Donnell, 24 Mont. 65 , 60 Pac. 594, 991 .) In the O’Donnell Case this court pointed out that our general lien statute does not require the claim to conta

1934Defendants assert that the court erred in admitting the lien claim in evidence because it “did not give the name of the owner or reputed owner of the leasehold” and was therefore invalid. *464 The general rule is that “whenever the particular statute requires the claim to contain the name of the owner or reputed owner, the omission of this detail is fatal to the lien.” (Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, 345, quoted in Missoula Mercantile Co. v. O’Donnell, 24 Mont. 65 , 60 Pac. 594, 991 .) In the O’Donnell Case this court pointed out that our general lien statute does not require the claim to conta

1934The defendants cite a number of decisions condemning the tacking of one contract debt to that of an independent contract debt as the basis of a single lien claim, the latest of which is an oil-well case (Exchange National Bank of Tulsa v. Okeya Oil & Gas Co., 107 Okl. 62 , 229 Pac. 765, 766 ), wherein the correct rule on this subject is stated.

1934The defendants cite a number of decisions condemning the tacking of one contract debt to that of an independent contract debt as the basis of a single lien claim, the latest of which is an oil-well case (Exchange National Bank of Tulsa v. Okeya Oil & Gas Co., 107 Okl. 62 , 229 Pac. 765, 766 ), wherein the correct rule on this subject is stated.

1919As was said by Mr. Justice Holloway, in Wertz v. Lamb, supra: “Our present Code provision is substantially the same as section 6, Chap. 40, p. 510, of the Laws of 1871-72, and in Black v. Appolonio, 1 Mont. 342 , this court in construing that section said: ‘It appears to us that all our statute requires is that a person wishing to avail himself of the benefits of it should honestly state his account.’ And this has been accepted as a correct interpretation ever since.

1919A. 599, 25 Atl. 297; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, 127 Mich. 183 , 86 N. W. 545 ; Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, sec. 229.) The evidence is conflicting concerning the delivery of some of the materials incorporated in the lien claim, as to when they were furnished, as to whether or not they were lienable articles and tended to enhance the value of the property, and as to whether they were all furnished under an open and running account or under one general contx’act.

1919A. 599, 25 Atl. 297; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, 127 Mich. 183 , 86 N. W. 545 ; Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, sec. 229.) The evidence is conflicting concerning the delivery of some of the materials incorporated in the lien claim, as to when they were furnished, as to whether or not they were lienable articles and tended to enhance the value of the property, and as to whether they were all furnished under an open and running account or under one general contx’act.

1919A. 599, 25 Atl. 297; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, 127 Mich. 183 , 86 N. W. 545 ; Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, sec. 229.) The evidence is conflicting concerning the delivery of some of the materials incorporated in the lien claim, as to when they were furnished, as to whether or not they were lienable articles and tended to enhance the value of the property, and as to whether they were all furnished under an open and running account or under one general contx’act.