Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt

683 N.W.2d 813, 2004 Minn. LEXIS 472, 2004 WL 1688180
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 29, 2004
DocketA03-358
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 683 N.W.2d 813 (Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt, 683 N.W.2d 813, 2004 Minn. LEXIS 472, 2004 WL 1688180 (Mich. 2004).

Opinion

OPINION

ANDERSON, RUSSELL A, Justice.

A mechanics’ lien ceases 120 days after the last work is completed unless the mechanic files a claim statement with the county recorder’s office and serves upon the property owner, either personally or by certified mail, a copy of the claim statement. Minn.Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1 (2002). In this ease, we are asked whether service by certified mail of a copy of a mechanics’ lien claim statement upon the property owner, as permitted by Minn.Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1(2) (2002), is effective upon mailing or upon receipt and we hold that service is effective upon mailing.

On May 4, 2000, John and Marlene Hil-debrandt (“Hildebrandts”) contracted with Eischen Cabinet Company (“Eischen”) to provide custom-made cabinets for their home in Hastings, Minnesota. Eischen completed the work on January 25, 2002. 1 The sum of $30,631.72 was due Eischen under the contract and Hildebrandts paid all but $3,131.72. On Friday, May 24, *815 2002, Eischen mailed a mechanics’ lien claim statement to the Dakota County Recorder for filing and also sent a copy of the claim statement by certified mail to Hilde-brandts’ home address, where the work was done. Eischen did not know that Hildebrandts received their mail at a Hastings post office box, and not at their home. The county recorder’s office, and also the Hastings post office where Hilde-brandts received their mail, were closed on Monday, May 27, for Memorial Day. The lien statement was filed and recorded by the county recorder on May 28. The certified letter with Eischen’s claim statement was received by the Hastings post office on May 28 and Hildebrandts picked up the letter at their Hasting post office box on May 30, 2002.

Eischen commenced an action to enforce its mechanics’ lien and Hildebrandts filed a counterclaim alleging that it would cost $3,000 to complete and correct the cabinet installation. Hildebrandts brought a motion for partial summary judgment which the district court granted, dismissing that portion of Eischen’s complaint seeking to enforce its mechanics’ lien and also discharging the claim statement — the notice of lis pendens — filed with the county recorder. The court concluded that service did not occur until Hildebrandts received the copy of the claim statement on May 30, 2002, and since May 30 was beyond the 120-day statutory time limit for service, Eisehen’s mechanics’ lien was untimely. 2

The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that timeliness of service is an essential requirement of the mechanics’ lien statute, and that service by certified mail is effective upon receipt of certified mail, not upon its mailing. Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt, 671 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Minn.App.2003). We granted review and now reverse.

We review summary judgment to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jorgensen v. Knutson, 662 N.W.2d 893, 897 (Minn.2003). Our review of the law, which includes the construction of statutes, is de novo. Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. JAG Investments, Inc., 634 N.W.2d 176,181 (Minn.2001).

We construe a statute to effect its essential purpose but we do not disregard the clear language of a statute — the letter of the law — to pursue the spirit of the law. Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn.1999). Our objective in all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 558 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn.1997). See also MinmStat. § 645.16 (2002).

In this case, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal issue is when service by certified mail is effective under section 514.08. The statute provides, in relevant part, that a mechanics’ lien

ceases at the end of 120 days after doing the last of the work, or furnishing the last item of skill, material, or machinery, unless within this period:
(1) a statement of the claim is filed for record with the county recorder or *816 * * * the registrar of titles * * *; and
(2) a copy of the statement is served personally or by certified mail on the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or the person who entered into the contract with the contractor.

Minn.Stat. § 514.08, subd. 1. (emphasis added).

The language of the statute is silent as to whether service by certified mail is effective upon mailing or upon receipt. 3 It is clear, however, that the mechanics’ lien statute is remedial in nature and its essential purpose is to reimburse laborers and material provider's who improve real estate and are not paid for their services. Guillaume & Assocs. v. Don- John Co., 336 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn.1983). Yet, the purpose of the mechanics’ lien statute does not answer precisely the question of whether service of a liens claim statement by certified mail is effective upon mailing or upon receipt.

The term “certified mail” is trademarked by the United States Postal Service and is a method of sending mail in which the sender receives “a receipt stamped with the date of mailing.” http:// www.usps. com/send/w ay stosendmail/'ex-traservices/'ceriifiedmailservice. htm (last visited July 13, 2004). For an additional fee, a sender can request delivery verification, through the use of a “return receipt.” Id. Within Minnesota statutes, however, when “service by certified mail” is effective differs with each statutory provision. Some statutory provisions declare that service is effective upon mailing. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 281.23, subd. 5 (2002) (relating to real estate tax sales and requiring service of notice of the expiration of redemption rights to be provided to all property tax payers and fee owners by “certified mail, return receipt requested,” acknowledging that “[p]roof of such mailing shall be made” but that “[fjailure to receive the notice shall not operate to postpone or excuse any default”). Other statutory provisions expressly state that service by certified mail is effective upon receipt or refusal to accept receipt. See Minn.Stat. § 144E.19, subd. 3(c) (2002) (providing that service of notice of temporary license suspension for emergency medical personnel “is effective when the order is served on the licensee personally or by certified mail, which is complete upon receipt, refusal, or return for nondelivery to the most recent address provided to the board”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Randall v. Paul
897 N.W.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2017)
State v. Nelson
842 N.W.2d 433 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2014)
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co.
820 N.W.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2012)
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc.
813 N.W.2d 906 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2012)
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam
814 N.W.2d 692 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2012)
Gallaher v. Titler
812 N.W.2d 897 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2012)
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC
801 N.W.2d 153 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2011)
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam
799 N.W.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2011)
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC
790 N.W.2d 167 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2010)
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
785 N.W.2d 753 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2010)
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC
767 N.W.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2009)
In Re Jmt
759 N.W.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2009)
In re the Risk Level Determination of J.M.T.
759 N.W.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2009)
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing
759 N.W.2d 229 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2009)
Metro Gold, Inc. v. Coin
757 N.W.2d 924 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 N.W.2d 813, 2004 Minn. LEXIS 472, 2004 WL 1688180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eischen-cabinet-co-v-hildebrandt-minn-2004.