The clerk of each circuit court maintains a book of abstracts of mechanic's lien filings that includes the name and address of each person with a mechanic's lien claim on particular property. § 429.090, RSMo 2000. This Court recognized in State ex rel. Erbs et al. v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo. banc 1951), that the abstract is “a proper public record.” No reason is given as to why holders of properly filed mechanic's liens are not entitled to due process protection of their property interests, including personal notice by mail, other than that it would require the county collector of revenue to look in two locations rather than in a single location to determine who is entitled to personal notice.
Id. at 664 (original emphasis). See State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128 (banc 1951); Dierks Sons Lumber Company v. McSorley, 289 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.App. 1956). See also §§ 429.190, 429.270 to 429.
Civil Rule 73.01(d), V.A.M.R., Craft v. Politte, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 534; Maas v. Dreckshage, Mo.App., 244 S.W.2d 397. The mechanic's lien law should be construed as favorably to mechanics and materialmen as its terms will permit. MidWest Engineering Construction Company v. Campagna, Mo., 421 S.W.2d 229, 233. As stated in State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver (banc), 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, 132, "* * * it has been the policy of our Legislature to construct our mechanics' lien statutes upon broad principles of right and justice and this Court has construed them liberally to carry out their remedial purposes. * * *" That opinion also remarked as to "* * * the liberal purpose of this equitable action * * *.
And the judgment must have been given contrary in some respects to the established form and mode of procedure for the orderly administration of justice. Wooten v. Friedberg, 355 Mo. 756, 765 (6), 198 S.W.2d 1, 7(6, 7); Badger Lumber Co. v. Goodrich, 353 Mo. 759, 775(2), 184 S.W.2d 435; State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, 130(1); Tureck v. Tureck, Mo.App., 207 S.W.2d 780, 785(4). We think the trial court's action in overruling appellant's motion of February 20, 1952 and motion for new trial, and in affirming the judgment of the trial court, was an irregularity within the meaning of the statute, Section 511.250, supra.
In the case of Macklind Inv. Co. v. Ferry, 341 Mo. 493, 108 S.W.2d 21, we held that, where an equitable mechanic's lien suit had been commenced by a corporation and a noteholder had been served by publication and designated as one of the unknown holders of notes secured by trust deeds, and the noteholder did not seek redress in the mechanic's lien case but filed an injunction suit to enjoin the sale of the property under a mechanic's lien judgment on the ground that the corporate plaintiff had been dissolved, the plaintiff, the noteholder, was not entitled to maintain the injunction action because the statute made it mandatory to seek relief in the mechanic's lien case. Again, in our recent case of State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, loc. cit. 132, we said: "We agree with the rulings in Mansfield Lumber Co. v. Johnson, Mo.App., 91 S.W.2d 239, loc. cit. 242 and Imse-Schilling Sash Door Co. v. Kellems, 237 Mo.App. 960, 179 S.W.2d 910, loc. cit. 915 that, because of the prohibition against any later separate suit in Sec. 3573, R.S. 1949, § 429.300, [V.A.M.S.], no petition filed after an equitable action has been brought can amount to commencing a separate suit, and that no service of process therein can have any force or effect."
When the judgment in the collector's suit was set aside, plaintiffs then had the same rights to come into it, and have their suits consolidated with it, as they had before the vacated judgment was rendered. (See State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, where there was a similar situation with reference to mechanic's lien suits.) When this collector's suit was dismissed, plaintiffs' suits were left pending and kept alive for prosecution by Section 52. (Sec. 141.680, R.S. 1949.)
The Missouri Supreme Court has held that this abstract is "[c]ertainly . . . a proper public record within the meaning of [what is now § 429.280] and all persons whose names are disclosed by it should be made parties when an equitable action is commenced" under § 429.270. State ex rel.Erbs v. Oliver, 237 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo. banc 1951). Realty Acquisitions' counsel acknowledged at argument that it would have been possible to locate Respondents' lien statements using the abstract maintained by the circuit clerk.
In this connection, we note that "only persons with an ownership interest are necessary parties to the mechanic's lien actions at law" while persons "who have any interest in the property, shown by proper public records, are necessary parties to equitable mechanic's lien actions." Hackmann v. Sommerfor Dev. Corp., 741 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Mo.App. 1987) (emphasis added); see State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, 130 (banc 1951). However, Appellant's appeal appears to be moot.
The plain intent of the equitable mechanic's lien act is that all persons who have filed liens must be made parties to any equitable action when it is commenced and should be served with summons promptly so that there will be no need for them to begin any suit themselves or do anything to preserve their liens except plead at the proper time in the equitable action. State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Mo. banc 1951). The equitable mechanic's lien action, established and governed by statute, is designed primarily for the purpose of enforcing multiple mechanics' lien claims filed against the same real estate, together with an adjudication of the rights claimed under all conflicting liens, encumbrances or other interests in the property.
This argument mistakenly assumes that all individuals with an interest in the property are necessary parties in any mechanic's lien action. Although all persons who have any interest in the property, shown by proper public records, are necessary parties to equitable mechanic's lien actions, see State ex rel. Erbs v. Oliver, 361 Mo. 836, 237 S.W.2d 128, 130 (1951), only persons with an ownership interest are necessary parties to the mechanic's lien actions at law. See Leonard v. Bennett, 674 S.W.2d 123, 130 (Mo.App. 1984).