Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Potter's Home Center, Inc., D/B/A Potter's Home Center v. Lauren Dale Tucker, and Wilburn R. Viles, Sr., and wife Mildred E. Viles, and the Guaranty Title Company, and First American National Bank
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03A01-9710-CH-00467
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; March 9, 1998; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Potter’s Home Center, Inc. appealed a summary judgment from the Chancery Court of Anderson County that dismissed its suit to enforce a materialman’s lien against Wilburn R. Viles, Sr. and Mildred E. Viles. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that Potter's did not meet the required notice provisions under the mechanics' and materialmen's lien statutes. Defendant Lauren Dale Tucker had purchased materials from Potter’s for a property owned by the Viles, known as the 'old Dairy Queen' property. Tucker failed to pay for several items, prompting Potter’s to attempt to establish a lien by notifying the Viles of nonpayment. However, instead of sending the notice via registered or certified mail as mandated, Potter’s employees hand-delivered it to Mr. Viles’ office, which did not comply with statutory requirements. The Viles filed for summary judgment, asserting Potter’s failure to adhere to the notice requirements invalidated their lien claim, leading to the trial court's decision in favor of the Viles. Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-11-115(a) (1993), the law requires a notice of nonpayment to be issued within sixty days of the last service or material provision, which Potter’s failed to execute properly. A notice of nonpayment required by T.C.A. 66-11-145(a) must be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and cannot be hand delivered. In this case, Potter's employees hand delivered the notice to Mr. Viles' office instead of sending it as mandated, resulting in Potter's ineligibility for a materialman’s lien. Potter argued that the hand delivery sufficed because Viles received actual notice; however, this claim was rejected, referencing a previous case (Don Wood Plumbing Co. v. Tri-Pi, Ltd.) where similar arguments were dismissed. The court emphasized that strict compliance with statutory requirements is necessary for establishing a lien, and actual knowledge by the landowner does not exempt the claimant from fulfilling these requirements. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of Potter’s action to enforce the lien was upheld, and the court affirmed the decision, with costs of the appeal taxed to the appellant.