{
  "id": 1709284,
  "name": "CARTER-FLEMING et al v. KIRBY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. and August KHILLING",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carter-Fleming v. Kirby Building Systems, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1980-09-08",
  "docket_number": "80-104",
  "first_page": "149",
  "last_page": "151",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ark. 149"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "603 S.W.2d 421"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "sha256": "7798c9addb2ef66915502290bcb211a3f5a00bbb441559c599fdc93d74d33179",
    "simhash": "1:19c99404066a8f92",
    "word_count": 572
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:39.197564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Fogleman, C.J., and Holt and Stroud, JJ., dissent.",
      "Fogleman, C.J., and Holt, J., join in this dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARTER-FLEMING et al v. KIRBY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. and August KHILLING"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Richard L. Mays, Justice.\nOur mechanics\u2019 lien statute requires actual notice to the landowner before the assignment of a lien against his land is enforceable. Since no specific time limitation is set out by the statute, the court below enforced a lien against the land of appellants in which the assignor of the lien continued to claim an interest six months after the assignment and in which no actual notice of the assignment occurred for seven months, and only then through legal pleadings seeking to enforce the lien. Although appellants do not claim prejudice, they argue that enforcement of a lien under such circumstances would completely emasculate the statutory requirement of \u201cactual notice.\u201d We agree and, accordingly, reverse.\nIn January, 1977, Khilco Industrial Electric, Inc. (hereinafter called Khilco) filed a materialman\u2019s lien against appellants, Carter-Fleming, a partnership, for electrical work done by Khilco as a subcontractor for appellants\u2019 general contractor responsible for erecting two buildings on appellants\u2019 property. On February 12, 1977, Khilco assigned the lien to appellee, August Khilling, and filed evidence of the assignment with the circuit clerk. On July 25, 1977, Khilco re-asserted an interest in the lien in litigation involving apellants. Approximately three weeks later on August 17, 1977, appellants were first notified of the assignment at the same time that appellee sought to enforce the lien.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 51-626 (Repl. 1971), provides that no assignment or transfer of a mechanic\u2019s lien shall \u201cbe enforced against the owner or proprietor of the ground or buildings unless such owner or proprietor shall have actual notice of such assignment so as to protect himself.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.] Although no specific time limitation for notice of the actual lien assignment is prescribed by statute, we hold that the requirement of \u201cactual notice\u201d at least contemplates a notice reasonably contemporaneous with the assignment of the lien. Since the requirement of notice is not conditioned upon actual prejudice, there is a time beyond which the giving of notice of the assignment will not be sanctioned. We hold that that time was exceeded under the circumstances before us today.\nReversed.\nFogleman, C.J., and Holt and Stroud, JJ., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Richard L. Mays, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "John F. Stroud, Justice,\ndissenting. I respectfully disagree with the finding of the majority that the giving of actual notice of the assignment of a mechanics\u2019 lien on August 17, 1977, was untimely and void for a lien actually assigned on February 12, 1977. If the legislature had intended a time limitation, I believe it would appear in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 51-626 (Repl. 1971). The statute indicates the only limitations to be that it \u201cshall not be enforced\u201d until the actual notice is given and indicates the purpose is \u201cto protect himself.\u201d Appellant here had notice prior to the enforcement of the lien and has shown no prejudice to the lapse of six months and five days. The facts are undisputed that the assignment was merely from the company to the president and owner of the company and there was no action appellee could possibly have taken to protect himself if he had been given actual notice on the day of assignment. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nFogleman, C.J., and Holt, J., join in this dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John F. Stroud, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shaw & Ledbetter, for appellants.",
      "Bethell, Callaway & Robertson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARTER-FLEMING et al v. KIRBY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. and August KHILLING\n80-104\n603 S.W. 2d 421\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 8, 1980\nShaw & Ledbetter, for appellants.\nBethell, Callaway & Robertson, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0149-01",
  "first_page_order": 177,
  "last_page_order": 179
}