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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
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."
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.