M & B Investment, Inc. v. Smith

670 P.2d 534, 9 Kan. App. 2d 31, 1983 Kan. App. LEXIS 193
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedOctober 13, 1983
DocketNo. 54,922
StatusPublished

This text of 670 P.2d 534 (M & B Investment, Inc. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M & B Investment, Inc. v. Smith, 670 P.2d 534, 9 Kan. App. 2d 31, 1983 Kan. App. LEXIS 193 (kanctapp 1983).

Opinion

Foth, C.J.:

This is an action to foreclose a subcontractor’s lien on defendants’ residence claimed by plaintiff for materials used in construction. The case was tried to the court on stipulated evidence. The trial court found that plaintiff s lien statement was not properly verified and that the statement taken as a whole was “confusing.” It therefore found the lien void, ordered it vacated and released, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant homeowners. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff M & B Investment, Inc., is a Kansas corporation wholly owned by Howard T. Murray, its president. Over the years it has engaged in a number of enterprises including the real estate business, development, land owning, and distributing fireplaces and kitchen cabinets. Its kitchen cabinet business involved here was conducted under the name “Murray Distributors.” Murray Distributors was housed in the same building as M & B but with a different street address (9099 rather than 9103 W. Central). It kept a separate set of books from M & B and is variously described in the record as a “subsidiary” or a “branch” of M & B. It was not, however, separately incorporated; its assets and liabilities were all those of M & B, the “parent” corporation.

Defendants Craig and Karen Smith contracted with Sunflower Contractors, Inc., through its president Charles Brodie, to build their new home. When it came time to install kitchen cabinets Brodie sent the Smiths to Murray Distributors to select them. In due course, under contract with Sunflower, Murray delivered materials to the Smith residence having an agreed value of $9,578.47. The cabinets were installed March 31, 1981, but not paid for by Sunflower. Plaintiff s lien statement was filed May 11, 1981:

[32]*32

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

Related

Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co.
400 P.2d 707 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1965)
Toler v. Satterthwaite
434 P.2d 814 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1967)
Deatherage v. Woods
37 Kan. 59 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)
Chicago Lumber Co. v. Osborn
40 Kan. 168 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1888)
Reeves v. Kansas Cooperative Wheat Marketing Ass'n
15 P.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
670 P.2d 534, 9 Kan. App. 2d 31, 1983 Kan. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-b-investment-inc-v-smith-kanctapp-1983.