Romito Bros. Electric Construction Co. v. Frank A. Flannery, Inc.

320 N.E.2d 294, 40 Ohio St. 2d 79, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 403, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 376
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 11, 1974·No. No. 74-521·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant argues that R. C. 1311.16 gives a contractor, who contracts with a lessee to make improvements on leased property, a mechanic’s lien against the lessor’s interest for such improvements.

In Mahoning Park Co. v. Warren Home Development Co. (1924), 109 Ohio St. 358, at 364, 365, this court said that the “right of one who furnishes labor or material for the [81] construction or repair of a structure to a lien therefore is created entirely by statute, ’ ’ and that under the provisions of R. C. 1311.02,* “before one who furnishes labor or ma-teria] may have a mechanic’s lien to secure the payment therefor, it must appear as a condition precedent thereto that the same was furnished pursuant to a contract, express or implied, and that the contract was made with the owner, part owner or lessee of an interest in real estate, or with the authorized agent thereof; and the lien thereby procured extends only to the right, title, and interest of him with whom the contract, express or implied, was entered into.” The court in Mahoning Park Co. found that there was such a contract, but that it was entered into by the lessee and the contractor aud that “only between the lessee and the contractor was the relation of debtor and creditor created.” The court added, on page 369, that “the fact that the owner of the fee knew that the lessee was making improvements does not subject his interest to the lien, as he does not thereby become a party to the contract.”

In Mahoning Park Co., this court held that a mechanic’s [82] lien attaches only to the interest of the person for whom the improvement is contracted to be made. On authority of that case, therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

This court expressly disapproves the opinion and holding in Vitale Bros. Co. v. Wurtz, supra (2 Ohio App. 2d 99), insofar as that case expresses a view different from that established in Mahoning Park Co.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, SterN, Celebrezze, W. BrowN and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

Romito Bros. Electric Construction Co. v. Frank A. Flannery, Inc., 320 N.E.2d 294, 40 Ohio St. 2d 79, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 403, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 376 (Ohio 1974).

320 N.E.2d 294 (Romito Bros. Electric Construction Co. v. Frank A. Flannery, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Krlich v. Clemente
2017 Ohio 5633 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
Gale v. Pattie Group, Inc.
2016 Ohio 5233 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Cuspide Properties, Ltd. v. Earl Mechanical Servs.
2015 Ohio 5019 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
Kazmier v. Thom
408 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1978)
Summer & Co. v. DCR Corp.
351 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1976)