DAVID-THOMAS COMPANIES, INC. v. VOSS

14 Citing cases

  1. FOLZ v. LAKE ELMO BANK

    No. A09-918 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2010)

    Mechanics' liens are creatures of statute, and the interpretation of the statutes governing liens presents a question of law which this court reviews de novo. David-Thomas Co. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Minn. App. 1994). But the district court's factual determinations shall not be set aside on appeal unless those determinations are clearly erroneous.

  2. Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Construction Co.

    535 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 1995)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that no mechanic's lien can attach when landlord, renting his entire property to tenant, has no actual knowledge of improvements made to property

    This mechanics' lien action ensued. This case is distinguishable from its companion case, David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341 (Minn.App. 1994), because here the subcontractors properly recorded their mechanic's lien statements. At trial, the court focused primarily on the question whether notice of non-responsibility was adequately posted at the FMA construction site. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that notice of non-responsibility was not adequately posted, and that determination is not challenged on appeal. It is also undisputed that the construction work performed by respondents constituted permanent improvements to the property.

  3. Randall v. Paul

    897 N.W.2d 842 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing public interest in fair debt-collection practices

    Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1 ; David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss , 517 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. App. 1994). The Randalls maintain that a lienholder is not immune from the FDCPA solely by virtue of complying with Minn. Stat. § 514.08.

  4. T&R Flooring, LLC v. O'Byrne

    A14-1315 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 6, 2015)

    This requirement of recording and service "is strictly construed so that failure to file the lien statement within 120 days after completion of the work defeats the lien." David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. App. 1994). In the summary judgment order, the district court stated that Johnson Comfort Systems completed its work on June 14, 2010, and recorded and served a mechanic's lien statement within 120 days on September 20, 2010.

  5. API Elec. Co. v. North American Specialty Ins. Co.

    A11-1790 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 29, 2012)

    Our conclusion in this case is consistent with caselaw that strictly construes the mechanics' lien notice period. See David-Thomas Cos., Inc. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. App. 1994) ("[F]ailure to file the lien statement within 120 days after completion of the work defeats the lien."). API gave its notice of claim more than 120 days after it finished work on the project, and therefore its claim is barred under section 574.31, subd. 2(a). While this result seems harsh, particularly when API missed the deadline by only seven days and will not get paid by the payment bond for work it completed, our conclusion is compelled by existing caselaw.

  6. Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam

    799 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    The time limits for establishing a mechanic's lien are strictly construed, and failure to record the lien statement within 120 days of the contractor's final improvement or contribution invalidates the lien. David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn.App. 1994). Appellant argues that Hunter's hand delivery of the lien statements failed to satisfy the service requirements set forth in the mechanic's lien statutes.

  7. Scherer Bros. Lumb. v. Metro-Prairie Const

    No. A09-548 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2010)

    Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1 (2008). The time limits for creation of a mechanic's lien are strictly construed, and failure to record the lien statement within 120 days of the contractor's final contribution invalidates its lien. David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. App. 1994). No lien shall be enforced unless the holder asserts the lien, which can be done by bringing a foreclosure action in district court, within one year of the date of the last item of the claim as set forth in the recorded lien statement. Minn. Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3 (2008).

  8. S. M. Hentges Sons v. Mensing

    759 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    The availability of a mechanic's lien is controlled by statute, and the interpretation of this statute presents a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Minn.App.1994). When interpreting a statute, we must " ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature."

  9. Bridgeplace Associates, L.L.C. v. Lazniarz

    No. A04-2218 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2005)   Cited 1 times
    Affirming summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on slander-of-title claim where mechanic's lien was filed when claimant knew it hadn't performed work during the period listed on the lien statement

    Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1 (2004); see also David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn.App. 1994) (stating that "the timing requirement of section 514.08 is strictly construed so that failure to file the lien statement within 120 days after completion of the work defeats the lien"). The district court concluded that when he filed his lien statement, appellant, "as a matter of law, had no good faith belief that he had 'performed labor or furnished skill, material, or machinery' for the property through December 30, 2003 or within the previous 120 days."

  10. R.J. Marco Constr., Inc. v. Sams Enterprises

    No. A04-1433 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 2005)

    The availability of a mechanics' lien is controlled by statute; and the interpretation of this statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo. David-Thomas Cos. v. Voss, 517 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Minn.App. 1994). Marco also argues that the district court erred by excluding Senn's deposition as substantive evidence at trial, but it does not assert any prejudice as a result of this ruling.