Contracts: Construction Contract – Mechanic’s Lien – Missouri Prompt Pay Act

(1)Where a foundation company sought to enforce a mechanic’s lien and also sought relief under the Missouri Prompt Pay Act, the property owner did not have the burden to prove that the foundation company failed to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner, and the plaintiff bore the burdens of proof and persuasion regarding quality of work since the defendant did not assert a claim or counterclaim for breach of contract.

(2)Even though a trial court erroneously indicted a lien statement for its failure to include an itemized statement of material and labor since the plaintiff contracted directly with the owner and was a general contractor, the court’s finding that the lien statement was not a just and true account is affirmed because there were several other defects in the lien, which were relied upon by the trial court and uncontested.
Judgment is affirmed.

R.K. Matthews Investment, Inc. v. Beulah Mae Housing, LLC (MLW No. 64210/Case No. WD74567 – 17 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Martin, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Youngs, J. (Douglas J. Patterson and Virginia L. Brady, Leawood, Kansas, for appellant) (David C. Kirk, Overland Park, Kansas, for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)