Exchange Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Monocrete Pty. Ltd.
629 S.W.2d 34, 1982 Tex. LEXIS 268, 25 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 133 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A perfected mechanic's and materialman's lien is subordinate to a prior recorded deed of trust lien if the materials furnished have become an integral part of a completed structure, as their removal would constitute material injury to the existing improvements as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Exchange Savings & Loan Association held a first lien deed of trust on several condominium properties.
- Monocrete Pty. Ltd. (Monier), a roofing company, was contracted to furnish and install concrete roofing tiles on these condominiums.
- Monier installed the tiles over plywood decking and felt paper, securing them with nails, mortar, and flashing, making them an essential component of a completed, weatherproof roof.
- The developer failed to pay Monier for the roofing materials and labor.
- Monier subsequently perfected a statutory mechanic's and materialman's lien on the properties for the unpaid amount.
- After Monier perfected its lien, Exchange Savings foreclosed on its pre-existing deed of trust lien.
- Exchange Savings purchased the condominium properties at the foreclosure sale.
Procedural Posture:
- Monier sued Exchange Savings in a Texas trial court to foreclose its materialman's lien.
- The trial court found that the tiles could not be removed without material injury and held that Exchange Savings' deed of trust lien was superior, extinguishing Monier's lien.
- Monier, as appellant, appealed to the Texas court of civil appeals.
- The court of civil appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the finding of material injury was against the great weight of the evidence, and remanded the case.
- Exchange Savings, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the removal of concrete roofing tiles from a completed condominium constitute 'material injury' to the existing structure, thereby making a materialman's lien for the tiles subordinate to a prior recorded deed of trust lien?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, Justice.
Yes. The removal of concrete roofing tiles from a completed dwelling constitutes material injury as a matter of law because the tiles are an integral and necessary part of the structure. Therefore, the materialman's lien is subordinate to the prior recorded deed of trust lien. The court applied the three-prong test from First Nat’l Bank v. Whirlpool Corp., which states that a materialman's lien is superior to a prior lien only if the materials can be removed without material injury to (1) the land, (2) the existing improvements, or (3) the materials themselves. The court reasoned that unlike removable items such as appliances, roofing tiles are essential for the completion of a livable dwelling and to protect it from the elements. Because the tiles became an integral part of the basic structure, their removal would inherently cause material injury to the existing improvements. Thus, Exchange Savings' deed of trust lien has priority over Monier's materialman's lien.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'material injury' test under Texas lien law by creating a distinction between accessories and integral structural components. It establishes that if a material is necessary for the completion and basic function of a building, its removal is considered material injury as a matter of law. This holding provides greater security to construction lenders (deed of trust holders) by limiting the ability of material suppliers to reclaim essential building components. The case serves as a key precedent for determining lien priority, forcing courts to analyze the function and necessity of the improvement in question, rather than just the physical damage caused by its removal.
