A Tenant's Barn, a Landlord's Lot, and a Judge's Line
Judge Robinson ruled that a contractor's lien for an unpaid Olympia livery stable could reach the building and leasehold—but not the owner's land.
In the superior court of the state of Washington, in and for Thurston County: J. W. Roberts, plaintiff, v. Drewery & Sons, defendants. In April 1891, I. C. Ellis, the owner, leased in writing lot 8 in block 6 of this city to Drewery & Sons for five years from May 1, 1891, with permission to put such improvements on the property as they might deem proper and to remove them at the expiration of the lease. The plaintiff, under contract with Drewery & Sons, erected thereon a frame, two-story feed barn and livery stable for $2,196.00. Only $492.25 was paid by Drewery & Sons on the building. When they failed to pay the amount due for material and labor, the plaintiff filed a lien for the balance against the building and lot. This suit was brought to foreclose that lien, and the only question before the court is whether the lien attaches to and holds the lot. Ellis insists that no interest in the lot outside the lessees' interest is subject to the lien; that Drewery & Sons could not legally make a contract affecting his interest; and that, owning less than a fee simple estate in the lot, they could only bind their own interest. I fully agree. Section 1957 of the code provides for work or labor done, or material furnished, whether at the expense of the owner or his agent, and declares that every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or person having charge of construction shall be held to be the agent of the owner for the purposes of the chapter. But this section only creates liens against the structure and does not provide for a lien against lands. Section 1959 provides for liens against the lands, but says that if the person who caused the building to be constructed owned less than a fee simple estate in the land, then only his interest therein is subject to the lien. In my judgment this lien can only be foreclosed against the structure in connection with the interest or right of possession to this lot resting in the lessee by reason of their lease, and the interest held by this lien is no greater or other than that of Drewery & Sons. J. W. Robinson, Judge. March 5, 1892.
“In my judgment this lien can only be foreclosed against the structure in connection with the interest or right of possession to this lot resting in the lessee.”
The fight is instantly recognizable to anyone who has rented a storefront or hired a contractor: when a tenant builds an improvement, who owns it, and who gets paid if the lease goes bad? Mechanic's liens still force courts to separate a tenant's leasehold from a landlord's fee—and to decide which one a contractor can reach.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.