Western Union Tel. Co. v. Spaeth, 232 Minn. 128, 132, 44 N.W.2d 440, 442 (1950). Similarly, no indication of an intent to clarify rather than change the statute is expressed in comments made by two legislators in response to this court's opinion in R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.App. 1986) ( "Windsor II"), pet for rev. denied (Minn. May 21, 1986).
In 1986, the Court of Appeals interpreted this amendment to mean that a visible staking or grading of property could constitute the first visible improvement, and the priority of all mechanics liens could therefore attach with the performance of surveying or engineering services. R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Company v. Windsor Development Corporation, 383 N.W.2d 362, 366-67 (Minn.App. 1986). This case conflicted with a long line of cases which had held that the actual or visible improvement must be an improvement on the ground.
1993); Kay v. Fairview Riverside Hosp., 531 N.W.2d 517, 521 (Minn.App. 1995), review denied (Minn. July 20, 1995). If, by contrast, the statute's unambiguous language merely produces a troubling result, we must apply it without reference to its drafting history. See R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362, 366-67 (Minn.App. 1986) (deciding the court must follow a statute's unambiguous language despite its propensity to create troubling results), review denied (Minn. May 21, 1995).
the act of staking [must be] attributed only to the improvement contemplated by the staking party, and not to any subsequent improvement contemplated by a different party.Thompson, 486 N.W.2d at 786-87 (rejecting interpretation of § 514.05 set forth in R.B. Thompson, Jr., Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362, 367 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986)). Thus, surveys and staking must also be related to the improvement to which the lienor contributes before it may constitute the first visible and actual improvement for purposes of the 1986 version of the statute.
See, e.g., E.H. Renner Sons, Inc. v. Sherburne Homes, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 177, 179 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990) (citing National Lumber Co. v. Farmer Son, Inc., 251 Minn. 100, 104, 87 N.W.2d 32, 36 (1957), for the proposition that the key inquiry for purposes of the Minnesota priority statute is "whether or not the improvement bears directly on the construction of the building rather than whether it is part of the overall project involved"). Weis Builders contends, however, that any visible staking, no matter what its purpose, is sufficient to constitute the first visible improvement under the Minnesota priority statute, relying on R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362, 367 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). There is a material fact dispute regarding whether the surveys had a direct relationship to the Ford Mall project. Weis Builders contends that some of the surveying work was done for purposes of designing the Ford Mall project and marking the boundaries of the project, and thus the survey bore a direct relationship to the construction of Ford Mall. MWF, however, contends that the first three surveys clearly do not relate directly to the Ford Mall project, because they occurred prior to the time when the project was conceived.
If, by contrast, the statute's unambiguous language merely produces a troubling result, we must apply it without reference to its drafting history. See R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362, 366-67 (Minn.App. 1986) (deciding the court must follow a statute's unambiguous language despite its propensity to create troubling results), review denied (Minn. May 21, 1995).
However, where the language of the statute is unambiguous, but merely produces a troubling result, the court must follow the language of the statute. See R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362, 366-67 (Minn.App. 1986), review denied (Minn. May 21, 1986).
Nov. 25, 1985). The remaining cases from Hennepin County are decided in R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Rothschild Financial Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), also released today. Both appeals include many of the same issues and were decided by the trial court based on virtually identical evidence submitted in the separate trials.