Printable Format60-1102. Filing and recording of lien statement; notice of extension. (a) Filing. Any person claiming a lien on real property, under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1101, and amendments thereto, shall file with the clerk of the district court of the county in which property is located, within four months after the date material, equipment or supplies, used or consumed was last furnished or last labor performed under the contract a verified statement showing:
(1) The name of the owner,
(2) the name and address sufficient for service of process of the claimant,
(3) a description of the real property,
(4) a reasonably itemized statement and the amount of the claim, but if the amount of the claim is evidenced by a written instrument, or if a promissory note has been given for the same, a copy thereof may be attached to the claim in lieu of the itemized statement.
(b) Recording. Immediately upon the receipt of such statement the clerk of the court shall index the lien in the general index by party names and file number.
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a lien for the furnishing of labor, equipment, materials or supplies on property other than residential property may be claimed pursuant to this section within five months only if the claimant has filed a notice of extension within four months since last furnishing labor, equipment, materials or supplies to the job site. Such notice shall be filed in the office of the district court of the county where such property is located and shall be mailed by certified and regular mail to the owner. The notice of extension shall be deemed sufficient if in substantial compliance with the form set forth by the judicial council.
(d) As used in this section and K.S.A. 60-1103, and amendments thereto, "residential property" means a structure which is constructed for use as a residence and which is not used or intended for use as a residence for more than two families.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1102; L. 1992, ch. 47, § 2; L. 2003, ch. 45, § 1; L. 2005, ch. 101, § 13; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1862, ch. 137, §§ 2 through 4; G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 633; L. 1870, ch. 87, § 24; L. 1871, ch. 97, § 3; L. 1872, ch. 141, § 3; L. 1889, ch. 168, § 2; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 650; R.S. 1923, 60-1402.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Legal rate of interest, see 16-201.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Survey of law of real property and future interests, James K. Logan, 12 K.L.R. 305, 307 (1963).
Operation and effect of recording statutes, 17 W.L.J. 615, 634, 635 (1978).
"Commercial Transactions Under the New Bankruptcy Act," Paul B. Rasor, 48 J.B.A.K. 199, 210 (1979).
"Kansas Mechanics' Lien Laws: Filing-Enforcing-Defending", Mert F. Buckley, 57 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 27, 28, 29, 30 (1988).
"Recent Developments in Kansas Oil and Gas Law (1983-1988)," Phillip E. DeLaTorre, 37 K.L.R. 907, 941 (1989).
"Debtor-Creditor: When Is an Improvement Not an Improvement? Interpretation of the Kansas Mechanic's Lien Statute [Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Services Ltd., 910 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1996)]," Juliann Johnson, 36 W.L.J. 499 (1997).
"What Should Lawyers Know from the 2003 Kansas Legislative Session?" Whitney B. Damron, 72 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 16 (2003).
"Recent Kansas Case Emphasizes Importance of Strict Compliance with Mechanic's Lien Statutes; Failure to Verify Lien Claimant's Address Renders Lien Invalid," 77 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 14 (2008).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Rural water districts; definitions; participating members. 85-136.
Notaries public; unsworn declarations; written declaration sufficient. 91-21.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-1402 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Lien must be filed within four months of date materials last furnished. Seyb-Tucker Lumber & Implement Co. v. Hartley, 197 K. 58, 60, 415 P.2d 217.
2. Cited in upholding lien filed pursuant to G.S. 1949, 60-1403 (K.S.A. 60-1103). Toler v. Satterthwaite, 200, K. 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 434 P.2d 814.
3. Verification essential to creation of lien; acknowledgment does not constitute "verification"; amendment of statement after expiration of statutory period not permitted. D. J. Fair Lumber Co. v. Karlin, 199 K. 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 430 P.2d 222.
4. History of section discussed with respect to oil and gas lien law (55-207 to 55-210). Mountain Iron & Supply Co. v. Branum, 200 K. 38, 41, 44, 434 P.2d 1015.
5. Interest on note became part of contract and may be recovered in lien foreclosure. Benner-Williams, Inc. v. Romine, 200 K. 483, 488, 437 P.2d 312.
6. Sufficiency of mechanic's lien statement discussed; description of land held insufficient. Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Due, 212 K. 658, 659, 660, 661, 512 P.2d 525.
7. Contract signed by owner to provide plumbing, heating and air conditioning for a motel considered that of contractor under statute. Stewart v. Cunningham, 219 K. 374, 376, 378, 548 P.2d 740.
8. Court did not err in holding that homeowner received actual notice of mechanic's lien and that the lien statement was reasonably itemized. Kopp's Rug Co. v. Talbot, 5 K.A.2d 565, 566, 570, 620 P.2d 1167.
9. An affidavit signed out of the presence of a notary is invalid and invalidates a mechanic's lien. Halsey v. Pat Reichenberger Lumber, Inc., 5 K.A.2d 622, 623, 621 P.2d 1021.
10. Lien statement should name as owner the owner who contracted for materials. Construction Materials, Inc. v. Becker, 8 K.A.2d 394, 395, 396, 399, 659 P.2d 243 (1983).
11. Mechanic's lien was a statutory lien rather than a "security interest." In Re Seel, 22 B.R. 692, 693, 694 (1982).
12. Where claimant verified lien statement not as individual but as president of lienholder corporation "dba," verification sufficient; required contents of statement discussed. M & B Investment, Inc. v. Smith, 9 K.A.2d 31, 35, 670 P.2d 534 (1983).
13. Purpose of verification considered; validity of lien statement, both body and verification, ascertained from its four corners. Trane Co. v. Bakkalapulo, 234 K. 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 672 P.2d 586 (1983).
14. Statement adequate although very poor photocopies of invoices used as itemized statement. Scott v. Strickland, 10 K.A.2d 14, 23, 691 P.2d 45 (1984).
15. Absent indication plaintiff's "best knowledge and belief" same as truth, ancient precedent dictates less than absolute verification insufficient. Lewis v. Wanamaker Baptist Church, 10 K.A.2d 99, 102, 692 P.2d 397 (1984).
16. Corporate verification under oath based on business records (60-460(m)), is sufficient. Star Lumber & Supply Co. v. Capital Constr. Co., 238 K. 743, 746, 752, 715 P.2d 11 (1986).
17. Cited; verification of oil and gas lien statement (55-209) similar in substance and purpose to mechanic's lien statement. DaMac Drilling, Inc. v. Shoemake, 11 K.A.2d 38, 40, 713 P.2d 480 (1986).
18. Lien statement may be verified by inclusion of statement within affidavit. Kansas Lumber Co. v. Wang, 12 K.A.2d 20, 22, 25, 733 P.2d 1266 (1987).
19. The test as to time when work completed to preserve lien, unfinished work as part of original contract examined. Eisenhut v. Steadman, 13 K.A.2d 220, 221, 767 P.2d 293 (1989).
20. 60-1105(a) as statute of duration not limitation requiring action within one year to perfect lien determined. In re Birdview Satellite Communications, Inc., 90 B.R. 465, 467 (1988).
21. Requirements for lien to attach must be strictly met; thereafter provisions are liberally construed; verifications examined. J. Walters Constr. Co. v. Greystone South Partnership, 15 K.A.2d 689, 691, 817 P.2d 201 (1991).
22. No agency relationship established, so mechanic's lien did not apply to landlord. Kansas City Heartland Constr. Co. v. Maggie Jones Southport Cafe, Inc., 250 K. 32, 34, 824 P.2d 926 (1992).
23. Cited; interpretation of "under oath" for lien statements. Double S, Inc. v. Northwest Kansas Prod. Cred. Ass'n, 17 K.A.2d 740, 741, 843 P.2d 741 (1992).
24. Record examined evidence held insufficient to extend mechanic's lien cutoff date. Manhattan Mall Co. v. Shult, 254 K. 253, 259, 864 P.2d 1136 (1993).
25. Filing of mechanic's lien must include "reasonably itemized statement"; section to be strictly construed (1986 unpublished opinion filed March 30, 2004, upon motion to publish). Huber Co. v. DeSouza, 32 K.A.2d 614, 86 P.3d 1022 (2004).
26. Lien held not perfected because of failure to verify address sufficient for service of process. Buchanan v. Overley, 39 K.A.2d 171-175, 177, 178 P.3d 53 (2008).
27. Cited; mechanic's lien of material supplier fails; failed to state general contractor's name. Alliance Steel, Inc. v. Piland, 39 K.A.2d 972, 976-978, 187 P.3d 111 (2008).