OPINION
RABINO WITZ, Justice.
This appeal concerns a judgment which was entered by the superior court foreclosing mechanics and materialmen’s liens against real property. Here and below appellants have challenged the validity of the lien claims on the ground the lien claims were not verified by oath as required by AS 34.35.070(c)(5).1 We reverse the judgment of the superior court.2
Appellants contracted with a general contractor, Irvin and Co., for the repair and improvement of the H.A.M.S. building which was located in Anchorage. Irvin and Co. in turn entered into contracts with several subcontractors, including Electrical Contractors of Alaska (ECA) and Tote’em Steel Ltd. (Tote’em Steel). After a substantial amount of the work had been completed, Irvin and Co. found, due to financial difficulties, that it was unable to pay ECA and Tote’em Steel amounts due and owing (approximately $45,000) under their subcontracts. In late May of 1973 both ECA and Tote’em Steel recorded claims of lien against H.A.M.S. Co.’s real property. The lien foreclosure eases were tried to the superior court without a jury, and judgment was entered in favor of ECA and Tote’em Steel against H.A.M.S. Co. and its partners jointly and severally.3
The judgment which was entered contains no explicit reference to the validity of the liens which ECA and Tote’em Steel had filed against appellants’ real property. The judgment does state that the respective amounts recovered by appellees “shall constitute liens against the H.A.M.S. Company property.” On the other hand we note that the superior court’s conclusions of law state that the judgment awarded ECA and Tote’em Steel “be satisfied unless paid by foreclosure of plaintiff’s claim of lien against the property which is the subject of plaintiff’s claim of lien.”
[260]*260In this appeal appellants claim that the superior court erred in declining to hold the lien claims invalid for lack of verification as required by AS 34.35.070(c)(5). Appellees counter by taking the position that the corporate acknowledgments which constituted the conclusion of each of the questioned lien claims constitute “substantial compliance” with AS 34.35.070(c)(5) and therefore render the liens valid.
It is established in law that a verification is a sworn statement of the truth of the facts stated in the instrument which is verified.4 A verification differs from an acknowledgement in that the latter is a method of authenticating an instrument by showing that it was the act of the person executing it.5 The text of AS 34.35.-070(c)(5) is clear. It requires that the claim of lien shall “be verified by the oath of the claimant or another person having knowledge of the facts.”
Neither of the questioned claims of lien contains a verification that the facts stated in the lien claims are true. The respective jurats merely state that the person executing the document did so on behalf of the corporation and acknowledge that the corporation executed the document pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of the Board of Directors. The jurat at the end of the claim of lien of Electrical Contractors of Alaska, Inc. reads:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this 18 day of May, 1973, before me the undersigned notary public, personally appeared E. Don Butts, known to me and to me known to be the President of Electrical Contractors of Alaska, Inc., a corporation, and known to me to be the person who executed the same instrument on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
WITNESS MY hand and official seal, (signed by notary public)
The jurat at the end of the claim of lien of Tote’em Steel states:
On this 21 day of May, 1973, before me the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Jerry H. Goode, known to me to be the President of Tote’em Steel, Ltd., and he acknowledged that he executed the within instrument on behalf of the corporation herein named, and pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
WITNESS MY hand and official seal, (signed by notary public)
Courts which have addressed the issue presented in this appeal have held that an acknowledgement is not sufficient to satisfy a mechanics’ lien statute which requires verification of the claim of lien by the claimant. In Bell and Zajicek, Inc. v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 182 A.2d 339 (1962), a factually similar case to the one at bar, the liens which were declared invalid were not sworn to by the claimant, rather the liens:
were signed by the president of the plaintiff corporation, but instead of the truth of the contents of the certificates being sworn to, the officer subscribing to the certificates merely made an acknowledgment before a commissioner of the Superior Court that he was the signer and sealer of the instrument and that it was [261]*261his free act and deed and the free act and deed of the plaintiff corporation.
182 A.2d at 340. The Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that “the plain meaning of the language of the statute [requiring a verification] cannot be ignored,” 6 and that “a certificate which merely recites that the claimant ‘acknowledges’ execution of the lien is insufficient.”7
In the somewhat analogous case of Hoffman v. Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 337 P.2d 521, 523 (1959), the California court held that an unverified claim for damages against a municipality, where the applicable statute required a verified claim, justified the granting of the municipality’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In so holding, the court rejected the claimant’s contention that the pleading was in substantial compliance with the controlling statute. There the court said:
The statute involved here provides merely that the claim be verified. . No particular form of verification is prescribed. ... A verification is an affidavit of the truth of the matters stated. . . . Its object is to insure good faith in the averments [of] statements of a party. . . . The term ‘verified,’ as applied to claims against municipalities, has a settled meaning, and refers to an affidavit attached to the claim, as to the truth of the matters therein set forth. . The chief test of the sufficiency of an affidavit is whether it is so clear and certain that an' indictment for perjury may be sustained on it if false, (citations omitted)8
The Hoffman court concluded:
In the instant case there is no affidavit attached to the claim as to the truth of the matters therein set forth and it does not appear that an indictment of perjury could be sustained on it if false.9
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
RABINO WITZ, Justice.
This appeal concerns a judgment which was entered by the superior court foreclosing mechanics and materialmen’s liens against real property. Here and below appellants have challenged the validity of the lien claims on the ground the lien claims were not verified by oath as required by AS 34.35.070(c)(5).1 We reverse the judgment of the superior court.2
Appellants contracted with a general contractor, Irvin and Co., for the repair and improvement of the H.A.M.S. building which was located in Anchorage. Irvin and Co. in turn entered into contracts with several subcontractors, including Electrical Contractors of Alaska (ECA) and Tote’em Steel Ltd. (Tote’em Steel). After a substantial amount of the work had been completed, Irvin and Co. found, due to financial difficulties, that it was unable to pay ECA and Tote’em Steel amounts due and owing (approximately $45,000) under their subcontracts. In late May of 1973 both ECA and Tote’em Steel recorded claims of lien against H.A.M.S. Co.’s real property. The lien foreclosure eases were tried to the superior court without a jury, and judgment was entered in favor of ECA and Tote’em Steel against H.A.M.S. Co. and its partners jointly and severally.3
The judgment which was entered contains no explicit reference to the validity of the liens which ECA and Tote’em Steel had filed against appellants’ real property. The judgment does state that the respective amounts recovered by appellees “shall constitute liens against the H.A.M.S. Company property.” On the other hand we note that the superior court’s conclusions of law state that the judgment awarded ECA and Tote’em Steel “be satisfied unless paid by foreclosure of plaintiff’s claim of lien against the property which is the subject of plaintiff’s claim of lien.”
[260]*260In this appeal appellants claim that the superior court erred in declining to hold the lien claims invalid for lack of verification as required by AS 34.35.070(c)(5). Appellees counter by taking the position that the corporate acknowledgments which constituted the conclusion of each of the questioned lien claims constitute “substantial compliance” with AS 34.35.070(c)(5) and therefore render the liens valid.
It is established in law that a verification is a sworn statement of the truth of the facts stated in the instrument which is verified.4 A verification differs from an acknowledgement in that the latter is a method of authenticating an instrument by showing that it was the act of the person executing it.5 The text of AS 34.35.-070(c)(5) is clear. It requires that the claim of lien shall “be verified by the oath of the claimant or another person having knowledge of the facts.”
Neither of the questioned claims of lien contains a verification that the facts stated in the lien claims are true. The respective jurats merely state that the person executing the document did so on behalf of the corporation and acknowledge that the corporation executed the document pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of the Board of Directors. The jurat at the end of the claim of lien of Electrical Contractors of Alaska, Inc. reads:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this 18 day of May, 1973, before me the undersigned notary public, personally appeared E. Don Butts, known to me and to me known to be the President of Electrical Contractors of Alaska, Inc., a corporation, and known to me to be the person who executed the same instrument on behalf of the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
WITNESS MY hand and official seal, (signed by notary public)
The jurat at the end of the claim of lien of Tote’em Steel states:
On this 21 day of May, 1973, before me the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Jerry H. Goode, known to me to be the President of Tote’em Steel, Ltd., and he acknowledged that he executed the within instrument on behalf of the corporation herein named, and pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
WITNESS MY hand and official seal, (signed by notary public)
Courts which have addressed the issue presented in this appeal have held that an acknowledgement is not sufficient to satisfy a mechanics’ lien statute which requires verification of the claim of lien by the claimant. In Bell and Zajicek, Inc. v. Heyward-Robinson Co., 182 A.2d 339 (1962), a factually similar case to the one at bar, the liens which were declared invalid were not sworn to by the claimant, rather the liens:
were signed by the president of the plaintiff corporation, but instead of the truth of the contents of the certificates being sworn to, the officer subscribing to the certificates merely made an acknowledgment before a commissioner of the Superior Court that he was the signer and sealer of the instrument and that it was [261]*261his free act and deed and the free act and deed of the plaintiff corporation.
182 A.2d at 340. The Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that “the plain meaning of the language of the statute [requiring a verification] cannot be ignored,” 6 and that “a certificate which merely recites that the claimant ‘acknowledges’ execution of the lien is insufficient.”7
In the somewhat analogous case of Hoffman v. Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 337 P.2d 521, 523 (1959), the California court held that an unverified claim for damages against a municipality, where the applicable statute required a verified claim, justified the granting of the municipality’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In so holding, the court rejected the claimant’s contention that the pleading was in substantial compliance with the controlling statute. There the court said:
The statute involved here provides merely that the claim be verified. . No particular form of verification is prescribed. ... A verification is an affidavit of the truth of the matters stated. . . . Its object is to insure good faith in the averments [of] statements of a party. . . . The term ‘verified,’ as applied to claims against municipalities, has a settled meaning, and refers to an affidavit attached to the claim, as to the truth of the matters therein set forth. . The chief test of the sufficiency of an affidavit is whether it is so clear and certain that an' indictment for perjury may be sustained on it if false, (citations omitted)8
The Hoffman court concluded:
In the instant case there is no affidavit attached to the claim as to the truth of the matters therein set forth and it does not appear that an indictment of perjury could be sustained on it if false.9
In opposition to those authorities which have held that the failure to comply with a statutory requirement of verification is fatal to the lien’s validity, appellees take the position that lien statutes are remedial and should be liberally construed, and thus since their lien claims substantially complied with all the statutory prerequisites for the creation of valí, liens, the questioned liens should be held validly created. Subsections (a) and (b) of AS 34.35.020 provide:
(a) No mistake in formality or lack of statement in the lien notice or the pleadings is ground for dismissal or unnecessary delay in an action to foreclose a lien.
(b) Substantial compliance with the law relating to the contents of the lien notice is considered sufficient, if the notice satisfactorily shows the name of the claimant, the amount of his demand, the time of his employment, the property sought to be charged with the lien sufficient for identification and the name of the owner or reputed owner of the property.10
Stephenson v. Ketchikan Spruce Mills, Inc., 412 P.2d 496 (Alaska 1966), marks the only previous occasion this court has had to address issues arising under AS 34.35.070(c)(5) [262]*262(verification requirement) and AS 34.35.020 (substantial compliance). In Stephenson, one of the issues on appeal was whether a claim of lien was invalid because the claim was not verified in accordance with AS 34.35.070(c)(5). In Stephenson, the claimant’s signature was missing from the jurat, although it appeared at the bottom of the claim of lien and the jurat was signed by a notary public. There the jurat stated:
Lyle E. Anderson, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: That he is the Manager of Ketchikan Spruce Mills, Inc. and makes this verification for and on behalf of said corporation; that Ketchikan Spruce Mills, Inc. is the claimant named in the foregoing claim of lien; that he has read the same and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of March, 1962.
(signed by notary public)
412 P.2d at 498 (emphasis added). In Stephenson we commented that:
Substantial compliance with the verification requirement is sufficient. There is substantial compliance here. The form of oath followed by the words ‘subscribed and sworn to before me * * * and the notary public’s signature, amounts in substance to a certificate by the notary that the claim of lien was verified by the oath of Anderson. The claim of lien is not ineffective by reason of any insufficiency in the requirement for verification.11 (footnote omitted)
In our view, Stephenson addressed a different issue than we are confronted with in the instant case.12 In that case there was an affirmation of the truth of the contents of the lien claims in the form of an oath, and a signature of the lien claimant. Thus, we determined that the specific placement of the signature at the foot of the claim of lien did not affect the validity of the lien since the notary certified “that the claim of lien was verified by the oath of Anderson.” On the other hand, in the case at bar, the issue is whether an affiant must swear to the truth of the contents of the document. In our view, Stephenson, did not address the statutory requirement that an affiant or claimant swear to the truth and correctness of the statements made in the claim.
Generally, some latitude is permitted by statutes as to the form in which the oath or affirmation may be administered,13 and substantial compliance with such form is often sufficient.14 However, there is a significant distinction between those portions of Alaska mechanics’ liens statutes which are remedial in nature, and those portions which articulate mandatory conditions precedent to the very creation and existence of the lien. It is the latter aspect of Alaska’s mechanics and materialmen’s lien statutory provisions which is at issue in this case.
A case interpreting an Oregon statute, which is the basis for the Alaska mechanics’ lien statute, points out:
It is well established in this state that because the right to a lien is purely statu[263]*263tory, a claimant to such a lien must in the first instance bring himself clearly within the terms of such law. The statute is strictly construed as to persons entitled to its benefits and as to the procedure necessary to perfect the lien. . . . However, when the claimant’s right to a lien has been clearly established, the law will be liberally interpreted toward accomplishing the purposes of its enactment, (citations omitted)
Anderson v. Chambliss, 199 Or. 400, 262 P.2d 298, 300 (1953). The Anderson court continued, quoting from Christman v. Sal-way, 103 Or. 666, 205 P. 541, 547 (1922):
“ ‘[I]t must affirmatively appear from the complaint that the notice filed contained all the essential provisions required by statute; that it was proper in form, verified as required, and filed within the time prescribed’.”15 (emphasis added)
In Sullens & Hoss, Inc. v. Farvour, 117 F.Supp. 535, 538, 14 Alaska 492 (D. Alaska 1954), relied upon by both parties to this appeal, the District Court for the Territory of Alaska stated in part:
As to the construction of the lien laws generally, 26-9-13, A.C.L.A.1949, declares that the intent of the Act is remedial and the provisions shall be liberally construed. But, as stated in Johnson r. Hails, 7 Alaska 638 and Irvine v. Mac-Dougall 5 Alaska 300: “The safe and proper rule of construction of mechanic’s lien statutes is that, while the remedial portions of the statutes should be liberally construed, with a view to avoid defeating the purpose of the statute, yet these parts upon which the right to the existence of the lien depends, being in derogation of the common law, should be strictly construed.” (Emphasis added)
In the absence of statute, it is generally held that a mechanic’s lien claim or notice cannot be materially amended or reformed, even in equity, after the expiration of the time prescribed by statute for the filing of the claim. . . . Unless authorized by statute, a mechanic’s lien claim may not be amended after the expiration of the time for filing. .
In various jurisdictions statutes confer authority for the making of the amendment after the expiration of the time for filing, though the statutes vary a great deal in their details. ... I find no statute exactly like that of Alaska. Even where these statutes are present, however, the Courts do not permit amendment where the lien is fatally defective, as where it is defective in substance and not in form, or where, for some reason, the amendment sought would be in effect the filing of a new claim. Nor will amendment be allowed after the time for filing so as to affect the rights of a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer, or intervening rights of other third parties, (citations omitted, emphasis added.)
117 F.Supp. 537-38.
Following this Oregon and territorial Alaskan case precedent, we think a construction of AS 34.35.070(c)(5), which requires that the claim of lien be verified by the oath of the claimant or another person having knowledge of the facts as essential to the existence of the lien, is mandated.16 Given the significant impact that the filing of a lien claim can have against the owner of the subject property, we think that strong policy reasons underlie the legislature’s determination that claims of lien must be verified. We think the requirement of verificant is reflective of the legislature’s awareness that a claim of lien adversely affects the title to the property and [264]*264its alienability; that the claim of lien can have an injurious impact on the credit of the owner of the property which is subjected to the lien; and that the claim of lien can be used as a vehicle to coerce settlement from the owner of the property. In light of these important policy considerations there exists a reasonable basis for the legislature’s determination that the significance of filing a lien claim be made clear to the lien claimant through the requirement of verification and the possibility of perjury prosecution for verifying a false lien claim.
Thus we conclude that the claims of lien in the case at bar are not valid liens due to the failure of appellees to meet the verification requirements of AS 34.35.-070(c)(5). In reaching this conclusion, we reject appellees’ contentions that the corporate acknowledgements affixed to the claims of lien constituted substantial compliance with the verification requirement of AS 34.35.070(c)(5) under AS 34.35.020. Therefore the matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to enter a judgment declaring that the purported mechanics and materialmen’s liens of appellees are void and of no legal effect due to the omission of verifications of the respective lien claims.