Wilson v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
217 S.W. 372, 1919 Tex. LEXIS 113, 110 Tex. 156 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A materialman's right to a lien on property is established by giving notice to the owner, which traps any funds the owner still owes to the general contractor, regardless of whether the general contractor has already paid the subcontractor who ordered the materials.
Facts:
- A property owner entered into a construction contract with a general contractor.
- The general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of the work.
- A materialman furnished materials to the subcontractor for use in the project.
- The general contractor paid the subcontractor in full for the work and materials provided.
- After the contractor paid the subcontractor, the materialman, who had not been paid by the subcontractor, served notice on the property owner of the unpaid claim.
- At the time the owner received the notice, the owner was still indebted to the general contractor in an amount exceeding the materialman's claim.
- The materialman subsequently filed and recorded a proper account to perfect the lien within the statutory time frame.
Procedural Posture:
- The materialman filed a lawsuit in the District Court against the property owner and the general contractor.
- The District Court entered a personal judgment for the materialman against the owner and contractor and ordered foreclosure of a lien against the owner's property.
- The owner and contractor, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The owner and contractor sought review from 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 a materialman who supplies a subcontractor lose the right to establish a lien against the owner's property by delaying notice to the owner until after the contractor has fully paid the subcontractor, if the owner still owes money to the contractor at the time of notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Greenwood
No. A materialman does not lose the right to a lien by delaying notice until after the contractor pays the subcontractor, provided the owner still owes the contractor money when notice is served. The statutes governing mechanic's liens prioritize the rights of the materialman over those of the contractor. The court reasoned that the notice requirement's purpose is to allow the owner to withhold funds from the contractor to satisfy the materialman's claim; if the owner has not been prejudiced by a delay in notice because funds are still available, the lien is not lost. The notice acts as a writ of garnishment, effectively trapping the funds in the owner's hands for the benefit of the materialman. To make the materialman's right dependent on the state of accounts between the contractor and subcontractor would defeat the purpose of the statute. Since the contractor chose the subcontractor, the risk of the subcontractor's default should fall on the contractor, not the materialman.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'trapping' theory of mechanic's liens in Texas, clarifying that the determinative financial relationship is the one between the owner and the general contractor at the time of notice. It establishes that the payment status between the general contractor and subcontractor is irrelevant to the materialman's rights against the owner and the property. The ruling provides robust protection for material suppliers and places a clear burden on general contractors to ensure their subcontractors' debts are paid, or risk having funds due to them from the owner 'trapped' to satisfy those debts. This precedent reinforces a policy of construing lien statutes liberally to protect laborers and materialmen.
