Case Summary: Bryant v. Jones et al., Court of Appeals of Georgia (Decided April 28, 1954; Rehearing Denied June 28, 1954)

Docket: 35008. Source opinion authored by Judge Nichols. Topic: mechanic's lien; enforcement statute and timeliness of suit.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff was a plumbing contractor who performed work and supplied materials to improve real property under a contract with the owner. The contractor furnished the last items of labor and material on July 30, 1951. The property was subsequently sold and conveyed to other parties (referred to in the opinion as subsequent purchasers). The plaintiff filed suit on August 6, 1952 seeking a general judgment against the person with whom she had contracted (the owner) and to foreclose her mechanic's lien against the property then in the possession of the subsequent purchasers. The subsequent purchasers filed a plea in bar asserting that the suit was not timely under the mechanic's lien statute. The trial court sustained the plea in bar, and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment sustaining the plea in bar.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a mechanic must bring suit on a claim against the person with whom the debt was contracted within 12 months from the time the debt became due in order to enforce a mechanic's lien against property subsequently conveyed to other parties.
Whether an agreement between the mechanic and the owner to complete work and to obtain a loan (or otherwise extend the time for payment) will postpone the time the debt is "due" for purposes of the 12-month statute against subsequent purchasers absent notice to those purchasers.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Code § 67-2002(3) (and Code, Ann. Supp., § 67-2002(3) — Ga. L. 1941, p. 345; Ga. L. 1952, p. 292)	Statutory requirement that suit to enforce a mechanic's lien must be brought within 12 months from the time the debt became due.	The court invoked this statutory time limit as the controlling rule for when suit must be filed to enforce a lien against property in the hands of subsequent purchasers.
Robinson v. Steamer Lotus, 1 Ga. 317	Support for the 12‑month requirement to bring suit under the mechanic's lien law.	Listed among authorities establishing the timeliness requirement for enforcing a lien.
Cherry v. North South Railroad, 65 Ga. 633	Support for the 12‑month requirement to bring suit under the mechanic's lien law.	Listed among authorities establishing the timeliness requirement for enforcing a lien.
Lombard v. Trustees of the Young Men's Library Assn. Fund, 73 Ga. 322	Support for the 12‑month requirement to bring suit under the mechanic's lien law.	Listed among authorities establishing the timeliness requirement for enforcing a lien.
Chamlee Lumber Co. v. Crichton, 136 Ga. 391 (71 S.E. 673)	Support for the 12‑month requirement to bring suit under the mechanic's lien law.	Listed among authorities establishing the timeliness requirement for enforcing a lien.
Kwilecki v. Young, 180 Ga. 602 (180 S.E. 137)	Support for the 12‑month requirement to bring suit under the mechanic's lien law.	Listed among authorities establishing the timeliness requirement for enforcing a lien.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Crawford Slaten Co., 46 Ga. App. 424 (167 S.E. 756); affirmed, 178 Ga. 450 (173 S.E. 91)	Support for the 12‑month requirement to bring suit under the mechanic's lien law.	Listed as an authority affirming the timeliness doctrine applied to mechanic's liens.
Chandler v. Pennington, 89 Ga. App. 676 (80 S.E.2d 843)	Recognizes exceptions where suit against the contractor is not required (e.g., contractor absconds, dies, removes from the State, adjudicated bankrupt).	The court cited this case to explain circumstances in which the requirement to sue the contractor within 12 months does not apply.
Young v. Landers, 31 Ga. App. 59, 119 S.E. 464	Rule that a debt for work and materials becomes "due" when the mechanic has completed performance of the contract.	The court used this authority to conclude that the debt was due when the plaintiff completed the work (July 30, 1951).
Dunning Tuttle v. Stovall, 30 Ga. 444	Principle that a debt may become due after the last item of work and materials has been entered on a running account.	Quoted as supporting the proposition about when a debt is deemed due for lien timing purposes.
McCluskey v. Still, 32 Ga. App. 641, 124 S.E. 548	Principle that a debt may become due after the last item of work and materials has been entered on a running account.	Used alongside Dunning Tuttle to support when a debt is considered due.
Phillips v. Hyde, 45 Ga. 220	Rule that contractual provisions extending credit or delaying payment are ineffective to postpone the time the debt is "due" against subsequent purchasers unless they have actual or constructive notice of those provisions.	The court relied on this authority to hold that the contractor-owner agreement to obtain a loan and pay later did not extend the time to sue as to subsequent purchasers who lacked notice.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in discrete steps, grounded in the statute and supporting precedents cited in the opinion:

Statutory rule: The court began with the statutory requirement (Code § 67-2002(3)) that a mechanic seeking to enforce a lien on property must bring suit on the underlying claim against the person with whom the debt was contracted within 12 months from the time the debt became due. The opinion cites several Georgia cases that support this rule.
Timing of when a debt is "due": The court explained that a mechanic's debt becomes "due" when the mechanic completes performance of the contract or, in the case of a running account, after the last item of work and materials is entered. To support this point the court relied on Young v. Landers and other cases.
Effect of private agreement to extend payment: The opinion recognized that parties to a contract could agree upon a later time for payment as between themselves; however, absent actual or constructive notice of such an agreement to subsequent purchasers, those private contractual provisions cannot extend the time within which suit must be brought to preserve the lien against subsequent purchasers. The court relied on Phillips v. Hyde for this rule.
Application to the facts: Applying these principles, the court found that the plaintiff furnished the last items on July 30, 1951, so the debt became due on that date for purposes of enforcing a lien against subsequent purchasers. Although the contractor and owner had discussed completing work and obtaining a loan with a hoped-for payment date (mid-August to August 15, 1951), the court held that, as to subsequent purchasers, there was no showing that they were given notice of any binding contractual extension of the payment date.
Conclusion on timeliness: Because the plaintiff did not file suit until August 6, 1952 — more than 12 months after the last work and materials were furnished — and because no notice of an extension was shown as to the subsequent purchasers, the suit to foreclose the lien was untimely as to the property then held by those purchasers. Therefore, the plea in bar filed by the subsequent purchasers was properly sustained.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment sustaining the plea in bar. The court held that the mechanic's suit, filed more than 12 months after the last work and materials were furnished (July 30, 1951), was untimely as to subsequent purchasers who had not been given notice of any contractual extension of the payment date.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The plaintiff's mechanic's lien could not be enforced against the property in the hands of the subsequent purchasers because the plaintiff's suit against the owner was not brought within the 12-month statutory period from the time the debt became due.
Scope of ruling: The opinion applied existing statutory text and established precedents concerning when a debt is "due" and the effect (or non-effect) of private extensions of payment as to subsequent purchasers. The opinion does not purport to announce a new legal principle beyond the application of those authorities to the facts of this case.

Judges Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concurred. The opinion does not contain a detailed recitation of the parties' procedural arguments beyond the facts summarized above.

Show full summary ...

BRYANT v. JONES et al.

NICHOLS, J.

1. One of the conditions of a mechanic's statutory right to enforce a lien upon real property for the repair or improvement of which he has supplied labor or materials or both is that he must bring suit on his claim against the person with whom the debt was contracted, either the owner or the contractor, as the case may be, within 12 months from the time when the debt became due. Code § 67-2002 (3); Robinson v. Steamer Lotus, 1 Ga. 317; Cherry v. North South Railroad, 65 Ga. 633; Lombard v. Trustees of the Young Men's Library Assn. Fund, 73 Ga. 322; Chamlee Lumber Co. v. Crichton, 136 Ga. 391 ( 71 S.E. 673); Kwilecki v. Young, 180 Ga. 602 ( 180 S.E. 137); Southern Ry. Co. v. Crawford Slaten Co., 46 Ga. App. 424 ( 167 S.E. 756), affirmed. 178 Ga. 450 ( 173 S.E. 91). Suit on the claim, if against a contractor, is not required under certain circumstances, as where the contractor absconds, dies, removes from the State, or is adjudicated a bankrupt. Chandler v. Pennington, 89 Ga. App. 676 ( 80 S.E.2d 843); Code, Ann. Supp., § 67-2002 (3) (Ga. L. 1941, p. 345; Ga. L. 1952, p. 292).

2. A debt for work done and materials furnished by a mechanic becomes "due", within the meaning of the lien laws, when the mechanic has completed his performance of the contract ( Young v. Landers, 31 Ga. App. 59, 119 S.E. 464), or after the last item of work and materials has been entered on a running account ( Dunning Tuttle v. Stovall, 30 Ga. 444; McCluskey v. Still, 32 Ga. App. 641, 124 S.E. 548); and, unless actual or constructive notice is given of any contractual provisions for an extension of credit to the owner, or for some other time when the debt shall become due, such provisions are ineffective to extend the time within which suit must be brought against the person with whom the debt was contracted, in order to enforce the lien against the property itself in the possession of subsequent purchasers. See Phillips v. Hyde, 45 Ga. 220.

3. In this case, the plaintiff, a plumbing contractor, furnished the last items of labor and material on July 30, 1951, to improve certain real property under a contract with the owner, and filed suit on August 6, 1952, to obtain a general judgment against the person with whom she had contracted and to foreclose her mechanic's lien against the property, which by that time had been sold and conveyed to other parties. Although the plumbing contractor and the owner with whom she contracted agreed that the work would be completed and a loan put through by the middle of August, and that the contractor would assist the owner in obtaining a loan so that the contractor would be paid by August 15, 1951, the debt was nevertheless due within the meaning of the lien laws when the work was completed and the last material furnished; and if there was a binding provision for payment at some other time, as between the parties to the contract, it was not shown that the subsequent purchasers of the property had notice of this provision. The court did not err in sustaining the plea in bar filed by the subsequent purchasers of the property improved, on the ground that the suit (on the claim against the owner) had not been brought within 12 months from the time when the last services were performed by the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

DECIDED APRIL 28, 1954 — REHEARING DENIED JUNE 28, 1954.

BRYANT v. JONES