JUNE 2024 | 17 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL the intricacies involved in securing payment for labor and materials in construction projects. Key aspects, such as the definition of lienable labor, pre-lien notices, lien statement filing requirements and considerations regarding tenants and vendees add layers of complexity to the process. Statutory amendments underscore the importance of staying updated with legislative changes. Conducting due diligence to ensure dealings with a property’s record owner is critical to ensuring a means of collecting for labor and materials provided. Procedures for filing and enforcing liens along with nuances – such as priority of liens, homeowner notices and exemptions for certain types of property – further underscore the multifaceted nature of Oklahoma’s lien laws. Additionally, mechanisms for the discharge of liens, including bond requirements and the potential for disputes, necessitate careful navigation. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brett Agee has practiced law in his hometown of Pauls Valley since graduating from the OU College of Law in 1988. He practices general civil litigation, including construction law litigation and has tried cases in Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma. Mr. Agee is also a member and former director of the Oklahoma Association for Justice, which presented him with the Member of the Year Award in 2005. ENDNOTES 1. In this article, references to mechanic’s liens and references to materialmen’s liens are references to both mechanic’s and materialmen’s liens, which are treated in the same manner under Oklahoma law. 2. 42 Okla. Stat. §§141, 143. 3. 42 Okla. Stat. §§142.6. 4. See Welling v. American Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 1980 OK 208 ¶4, 617 P.2d 206, 208. 5. 42 Okla. Stat. §143. 6. Stern v. Great Plains Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 1989 OK CIV APP 46, ¶5, 778 P.2d 933, 935. 7. Id., citing Midland Mortgage Company v. Sanders England Investments, 1984 OK 10, 682 P.2d 748; Green v. Reese, 1953 OK 198, 261 P.2d 596, citing Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v. Jackson, 1910 OK 85, 26 Okla. 1, 108 P. 409. 8. 1989 OK CIV APP 46, ¶7. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. Id. 12. Advanced Res. Sols., LLC v. Stava Bldg. Corp., 2019 OK CIV APP 28, 441 P.3d 551. 13. As is noted above, the pre-lien notice requirements now apply to all owner-occupied dwellings of any kind, regardless of the amount of the claim. 14. Id. 15. 42 Okla. Stat. §142. 16. Id. 17. 42 Okla. Stat. §143. 18. Id. 19. 42 Okla. Stat. §142. 20. 61 Okla. Stat. §222. 21. Biantrav Contractor, LLC v. Condren, 2020 OK 73, ¶7 and 9, 489 P.3d 522, 523. 22. Id. at ¶8, citing 42 Okla. Stat. §172. 23. 42 Okla. Stat. §142.6B. 24. Deka Development Co. v. Fox, 1934 OK 698 at ¶0, 39 P.2d 143. 25. Id., at ¶0 (Syllabus 4) (emphasis added). 26. Id., at ¶0 (Syllabus 2) (emphasis added). 27. Statser v. Chickasaw Lumber Co., 1958 OK 177 at ¶¶24-26, 327 P.2d 686, 691 (emphasis added). 28. 42 Okla. Stat. §143.1. 29. 42 Okla. Stat. §141. 30. Prior to Nov. 1, 2011, 42 Okla. Stat. §§142.1, 142.3 and 142.5 required a party claiming a mechanic’s lien on owner-occupied property to have furnished a statement warning the homeowner of the possible consequences of the mechanic’s lien law before the construction began in order for the lien claimant to enforce the lien. Although those sections are repealed effective Nov. 1, 2011, homeowners are provided different protections beginning Nov. 1, 2011, as is discussed above in “Pre-Lien Notices.” 31. Kleindorfer v. Dascomb-Daniels Lumber Co., 1924 OK 443, 102 Okla. 60, 226 P. 354, 354–55. See also 31 Okla. Stat. §5 (“The exemption of the homestead provided for in this chapter shall not apply where the debt is due: ... 3. For work and material used in constructing improvements thereon”). 32. 42 Okla. Stat. §143.3. 33. Hutchinson v. Krueger, 1912 OK 368, 34 Okla. 23, 124 P. 591, 592. 34. See 61 Okla. Stat. §§1 et seq. 35. 61 Okla. Stat. §2 (subcontractors must give “written notice to the contractor and surety on the payment bond within ninety (90) days from the date on which such person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material or parts for which the claim is made”). 36. 15 Okla. Stat. §821. 37. H2K Techs., Inc. v. WSP USA, Inc., 2021 OK 59, ¶17, 503 P.3d 1177, 1185. 38. Id., at ¶15. 39. 42 Okla. Stat. §172. 40. 42 Okla. Stat. §176. 41. Oklahoma Title Examination Standards Section 24.10, 16 Okla. Stat. App. 42. Citing 12 Okla. Stat. §100 and Newman v. Kirk, 1933 OK 405, 164 Okla. 147, 23 P.2d 163 (1933). 43. 42 Okla. Stat. §147.1. 44. Of course, when a bond is posted, the bond does not legally limit the defendant’s liability to the amount of the bond, but if the defendant is not financially sound, the bond may, as a practical matter, provide the only means of recovery. 45. H2K Techs., Inc. v. WSP USA, Inc., 2021 OK 59, ¶2, 503 P.3d 1177, 1179. 46. Id. 47. 42 Okla. Stat. §152(1). 48. See Kent F. Frates, “Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Lien Claims: Recovery under Oklahoma’s Trustee Statutes,” 47 OBJ Q-125 (1976), which can be accessed by using the search instructions at www.okbar.org/barjournal/archive. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==