Tag Archives: Last Day Work is Performed for MO Mechanic’s Liens

Missouri Mechanic’s Liens: Determining the Last Day Work was Performed

A mechanic’s lien must be filed within the time prescribed by statute, or it will not be valid.

So, how long does a contractor performing work in Missouri have to file a mechanic’s lien?

R.S.Mo. § 429.080 governs the time in which a mechanic lien must be filed and states, in pertinent part, that it must be filed: “[w]ithin six months after the indebtedness shall have accrued …” R.S.Mo. § 429.080 (2014) (emphasis added).

Thus, the next logical question is, when does the indebtedness accrue?

“The date the ‘indebtedness has accrue[s’] is the last day work was performed…When a job is finished and indebtedness has accrued is a question of fact.” Midwest Floor Co. v. Miceli Dev. Co., 304 S.W.3d at 247.

When is Work Lienable?

It is important to recognize the rigidity of the deadline as a contractor could be precluded from filing a mechanic’s lien if it is not timely filed.  The right and power to file a mechanic’s lien is created by statute, and thus the “lien claimant must substantially comply with statutory requirements.Midwest Floor Co. v. Miceli Dev. Co., 304 S.W.3d 243, 246 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009.

Accordingly, a contractor should know exactly what Missouri uses as the last day that work is performed. “If labor is performed after it is accepted as substantially complete under the contract, the work will not be lienable. See S & R, 610 S.W.2d at 694 (holding that if labor is done after the owner accepts the work as substantially complete under the contract, the work will not be lienable).” Brown v. Davis, 249 S.W. 696, 698 (Mo.App.St.L.1923).

“A subcontractor cannot, after the termination of an account, extend the mechanic’s lien filing time by rectifying some fault of his in performing the contract.” S & R Builders & Suppliers, Inc. v. Marler, 610 S.W.2d 690, 693 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Last Day Work was Performed Case Summaries

The following is directly quoted from Manning Const. Co. v. MCI Partners, LLC, 419 S.W.3d 134, 139 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) regarding that last day work is performed and is organized to facilitate legibility:

  • See, e.g., United Petroleum, 218 S.W.3d at 482 (“work performed by a subcontractor that is not intended to simply extend the mechanic’s lien account filing time but is necessary to complete the project in a workmanlike manner operates to extend the lien deadline if it is reasonably within the purview of the original contract” (emphasis added));
  • E. Birk & Son Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Malan Constr. Co., 548 S.W.2d 611, 616 (Mo.App.1977) (finding that later work extended lien-filing deadline where “[i]t cannot be denied that this work was essential for the completion of the project, and was not performed for the mere purpose of preserving a mechanic’s lien, but, rather, was reasonably within the purview of the original contract”);
  • Brown v. Davis, 249 S.W. 696, 697–98 (Mo.App.1923) (“It could not be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff performed the [later] work … merely for the purpose of extending the time for filing his lien …”);
  • Badger Lumber Co. v. W.F. Lyons Ice & Power Co., 174 Mo.App. 414, 160 S.W. 49, 53 (1913) (affirming trial court’s holding that later supply of materials to construction project extended deadline for lien filing as to earlier-supplied materials, where “the court, in its findings of fact, states that these items were not charged to the account by appellant for the purpose of extending the time for filing its lien, but were sold in good faith for the purpose of being used, and the same were used, in the construction of the building in question”);
  • Fire Extinguisher, 65 S.W. at 323 (noting evidence that “the [later] work done by the plaintiff … was not a mere scheme on its part to extend the period for filing the lien,” and that owner’s knowledge of, and acquiescence in, later work was “not [intended] as making a new contract for extending the period of limitations”);
  • see also School Dist. of Univ. City ex rel. H & M Mech. Corp. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 904 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Mo.App.E.D.1995) (applying mechanic’s-lien principles to suit on construction performance bond; “Where the reason for the furnishing of small additional items is only to circumvent the notice provision, the time for filing will not be extended.”).

Manning Const. Co. v. MCI Partners, LLC, 419 S.W.3d 134, 139 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).