§
Subdivision 1.Mechanics' lien on personal property.
Whoever, at the request of the owner or legal possessor of any personal property, shall store or care for or contribute in any of the modes mentioned in section 514.19 to its preservation, care, or to the enhancement of its value, shall have a lien upon such property for the price or value of such storage, care, or contribution, and for any legal charges against the same paid by such person to any other person, and the right to retain possession of the property until such lien is lawfully discharged.
§
Subd. 1a.
[Renumbered 168B.045]
§
Subd. 2.Nonpossessory lien; notice.
Notwithstanding the voluntary surrender or other loss of possession of the property on which the lien is claimed, the person entitled thereto may preserve the lien upon giving notice of the lien at any time within 60 days after the surrender or loss of possession, by filing in the appropriate filing office under the Uniform Commercial Code, section 336.9-501, a verified statement and notice of intention to claim a lien. The statement shall contain a description of the property upon which the lien is claimed, the work performed or materials furnished and the amount due.
§
Subd. 3.Priority; security; interest; foreclosure.
The lien shall be valid against everyone except a purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith without notice and for value whose rights were acquired prior to the filing of the lien statement and who has filed a statement of interest in the appropriate filing office. The lien shall be considered a security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code and foreclosure thereon shall be in the manner prescribed for security interests under article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
§
Subd. 4.Motor vehicles excluded.
Subdivisions 2 and 3 shall apply to machinery, implements and tools of all kinds but shall not apply to motor vehicles.
Notes of Decisions
Conseco Loan Fin. Co. v. Boswell, 687 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “365 (2002) or a statutory possesso-ry lien under Minn.Stat. § 514.18 (2002) for reasonable storage and preservation costs, which took priority over Conseco’s secured interest and was enforceable by public sale; and (2) the district court erred by issuing its declaratory judgment…”
Timmer v. Gray, 395 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The personal property had been left unattended for over two years and its enrichment at the expense of an unknowing repairman is evident.”
Kampsen v. Cnty. of Kandiyohi, 426 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 514.18, subd. 1, provides: Whoever, at the request of the owner or legal possessor of any personal property, shall store or care for or contribute in any of the modes mentioned in section 514.”
Paulucci v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1335 (D. Minnesota 1997).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 514.18, 514.19(2) & (5). Pack readily admits that no Minnesota case law exists applying the statutory mechanic’s lien and detainer statutes to materials provided to an individual for the purpose of authoring a manuscript.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud v. Fitzpatrick, 385 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Respondent argued that the agreement between he and Kampa was that of a bailment, entitling respondent to a lien under Minn.Stat. § 514.18, subd. 1 and § 514.19(2) (1984).”
Dusenbery v. Hawks, 895 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 21× “The district court determined, and we agree, that Minn. Stat. § 514.18 governs this priority dispute.”
Hunter v. Dave Billion, Auto (D.S.D. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 2201 that the Minnesota mechanics’ lien statute, Minn. Stat. § 514.18 ,3 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of denial of property without due process of law.”
Hunter v. Dave Billion, Auto (D.S.D. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 2201 that the Minnesota mechanics’ lien statute, Minn. Stat. § 514.18 ,3 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of denial of property without due process of law.”
First Bank Southdale v. Kinney, 392 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “Usem, in addition to raising a constitutional issue regarding Minn.Stat. §§ 514.18, .19 (1984), argued that Tolchiner forfeited any right to a possessory lien by demanding an excessive amount in order to satisfy the purport *742 ed lien.”
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.