Construction liens
- who is entitled to lien
Source:
Section 87.010 — Construction liens; who is entitled to lien, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors087.html.
Notes of Decisions
Unpaid subcontractor materialman could maintain action against insurer on contractor’s bond, which promised to “pay all persons who performed work”; overruling to extent of inconsistency, Tait & Co. v. D. Diamond Corp., 228 Or 602, 365 P2d 883 (1961). Jacobs Associates v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 282 Or 551, 580 P2d 529 (1978)
Specific notice to materialman that check is intended for payment on particular project requires that payment be credited toward lien on that project. Empire Building Supply, Inc. v. EKO Investments, Inc., 40 Or App 739, 596 P2d 593 (1979)
Providing drop boxes and hauling them away when filled with debris was act of preparation for improvement to land and gave rise to lien under this section. Abajian v. Hill, 42 Or App 695, 601 P2d 837 (1979)
Damages incurred as result of owner’s breach of contract that do not relate to anything that became part of the improvement do not add any value to the improvement and thus, although recoverable under general contract principles, are not subject to statutory lien. Minter-Wilson Drilling Co. v. Richins, 60 Or App 702, 655 P2d 1060 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Excavation and grading of parking area come within definition of “improvement” and are lienable. Robertson, Hay & Wallace v. Kunkle, 69 Or App 99, 686 P2d 399 (1984)
Claims relating to labor and materials performed and supplied off premises are lienable where lease required that work be done and improvements enhanced value of mortgagee’s security interest. Robertson, Hay & Wallace v. Kunkle, 69 Or App 99, 686 P2d 399 (1984)
Material “to be used in” construction need not become part and parcel of improvement for lien to attach. Rotarius v. Edwards, 147 Or App 484, 936 P2d 401 (1997)
Commingling of lienable and nonlienable charges does not invalidate lien if property owner has sufficient knowledge to question amount of lien or can readily obtain sufficient information to separate lienable and nonlienable charges. A-C Construction, Inc. v. Bakke Corp., 153 Or App 41, 956 P2d 219 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Lien in favor of trustees of construction worker employee benefit plan is not preempted by Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Farmington Casualty Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Or. 1998)
Labor union, union benefit plan trustees and union collection agent are ineligible to sue in representational capacity on behalf of union member who is “person performing labor.” International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 48 v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 168 Or App 101, 5 P3d 1122 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Provision allowing trustee of employee benefit plan
to file lien to collect payments due plan is not preempted by Employee Retirement Income Security Act. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 48 v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 168 Or App 101, 5 P3d 1122 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney General Opinions
Validity of mechanics lien in home solicitation sale where notice of cancellation not given, (1974) Vol 37, p 316
Law Review Citations
41 WLR 95 (2005)
Up to date