Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenant Improvements Lead to Mechanic's Lien on Owner's Property
For the first time, a Missouri Court of Appeals has held that a contractor who has performed work for a shopping mall tenant may have mechanic's lien rights on the landlord's simple interest in the entire mall.
In Crafton Contracting Co. v. Swenson Construction Co., No. ED102910, (Mo. App. E.D. April 12, 2016), landlord Plaza Frontenac Acquisition, LLC, and tenant Allen Edmonds Corporation entered into a 10-year lease for space in which the tenant desired to operate an Allen Edmonds shoe store. The lease required the tenant to improve the leased space, including a bump-out of the storefront; installation of storefront signs, customer entrance doors, and floor coverings; applying plaster; undertaking interior decoration; connecting plumbing lines to the mall system; and completing extensive electrical work. As required by the lease, the tenant submitted plans for these improvements to the landlord for approval, and the landlord approved them.
The tenant hired Swenson Construction Company (SCC) as general contractor to perform the work. SCC then subcontracted the demolition, framework, drywall, carpentry, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning work to two subcontractors, Crafton Contracting Company (Crafton) and Vogel Sheet Metal and Heating, Inc. (Vogel). Upon completion of the work, the tenant paid SCC, but SCC never paid subcontractors Crafton and Vogel. Soon thereafter, SCC went out of business. Crafton and Vogel then filed mechanic's liens on the mall against the landlord and filed suit to enforce the liens. The trial court found that the liens were unenforceable against the landlord because Crafton and Vogel failed to establish that the tenant was the landlord's agent under Missouri's mechanic's lien statute.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?