Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 514.09 (2026)

Two Or More Buildings

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A lienholder who has contributed to the erection, alteration, removal, or repair of two or more buildings or other improvements situated upon or removed to one lot, or upon or to adjoining lots, under or pursuant to the purposes of one general contract with the owner, may file one statement for the entire claim, embracing the whole area so improved; or, if so electing, the lienholder may apportion the demand between the several improvements, and assert a lien for a proportionate part upon each, and upon the ground appurtenant to each, respectively.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 62× “(Kuechle), filed a blanket mechanic’s lien under Minn.Stat. § 514.09 (2008), against the 59 lots of the project, and sought to foreclose the lien against the three model-home lots of the project upon which it enjoyed a first-priority lien.”

Ryan Contracting Co. v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP, 883 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 35× “The district court also' rejected Farr’s argument that Ryan’s liens were void for failure to comply with Minn. Stat. § 514.09 (2014), which addresses liens filed based upon improvements to adjoining lots.”

Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 767 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 514.09 (2008). The statute was originally intended to relieve a mechanic of the need to keep separate accounts when improving multiple contiguous lots.”

Automated Bldg. Components, Inc. v. New Horizon Homes, Inc., 514 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 14× “Each lot was the subject of a separate foreclosure action, but those cases were consolidated into this action.”

R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “However, Minn.Stat. § 514.09 (1984) allows a lienholder to file one statement for improvements to two adjoining lots which are under one contract with the owner.”

Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC, 791 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 514.09 (2008) (“A lienholder who has contributed to the erection, alteration, removal, or repair of two or more buildings or other improvements .”

Kirkwold Constr. Co. v. M.G.A. Constr., Inc., 498 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Construction, which had taken over the project from Duckwood, paid Turner the $6,500 that Turner billed for its work on the Holiday lot and contracted anew with Turner to complete the original project.”

Ryan Contracting Co. v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP, 868 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “” It concluded that Minn.Stat. § 514.09 (2006) “provided Ryan a means of filing a timely lien statement while reserving decisions about apportionment for a later time.”

Kirkwold Const. v. Mga Const., Inc., 498 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Construction, which had taken over the project from Duckwood, paid Turner the $6,500 that Turner billed for its work on the Holiday lot and contracted anew with Turner to complete the original project.”

M & G Servs., Inc. v. Buffalo Lake Advanced Biofuels, LLC, 895 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “It argues that the district court erred in determining that: (1) M & G’s removal and distribution of the excess thin stillage constitute a lienable contribution to the improvement of the ethanol plant property; (2) M & G offsite work was a lienable contribution to the ethanol…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.