429.040. When the improvements consist of two or morebuildings, united together and situated upon the same lot orcontiguous lots, or separate buildings upon contiguous lots, or acontinuous or connected sidewalk in front or alongside ofcontiguous lots, and erected under one general contract, it shallnot be necessary to file a separate lien upon each building orlot for the work done or materials furnished in the erection ofsuch improvements.
(1960) Where petition of subcontractor alleged that work in paving and grading of street and driveways for twelve contiguous lots of land was all performed under one contract, that the general contractor engaged to construct the buildings on the various lots and alleged that the contiguous lots were owned by the present owners, it stated a cause of action for a mechanics' lien. Ladue Contracting Co. v. Land Development Co. (A.), 337 S.W.2d 578.
(1960) Where one contract for plumbing was made for a large number of buildings in a subdivision on property owned by four different corporations but which was controlled by a fifth corporation and the lots were separated by streets, they were contiguous within the meaning of this section and therefore subject to the mechanics' lien law. Schwartz v. Shelby Const. Co. (Mo.), 338 S.W.2d 781.
(1968) The words "erected under one general contract" as used in mechanics' lien statutes are not confined to a case where the whole of the buildings are to be completed under one contract, but include a contract to purchase all of the materials of a specified kind for the buildings. Stewart C.&M. Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co. (A.), 433 S.W.2d 76.
(1969) Two tracts or two lots which have only one common corner are not "contiguous" within the meaning of this section. Stewart C.&M. Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co. (A.), 433 S.W.2d 76.
(1971) Lots held not to be contiguous where private street separated them and contractor who began work after subdividing and building of street was not entitled to single mechanic's lien against all lots. United Lumber Co. v. Minmac Investment Co. (A.), 472 S.W.2d 630.
(2001) Section is the exclusive avenue for filing a blanket lien covering more than one building or lot. Concrete Company of the Ozarks v. Catamount Ridge North, LLC, 63 S.W.3d 260 (Mo.App.S.D.).
429.040. When the improvements consist of two or morebuildings, united together and situated upon the same lot orcontiguous lots, or separate buildings upon contiguous lots, or acontinuous or connected sidewalk in front or alongside ofcontiguous lots, and erected under one general contract, it shallnot be necessary to file a separate lien upon each building orlot for the work done or materials furnished in the erection ofsuch improvements.
(1960) Where petition of subcontractor alleged that work in paving and grading of street and driveways for twelve contiguous lots of land was all performed under one contract, that the general contractor engaged to construct the buildings on the various lots and alleged that the contiguous lots were owned by the present owners, it stated a cause of action for a mechanics' lien. Ladue Contracting Co. v. Land Development Co. (A.), 337 S.W.2d 578.
(1960) Where one contract for plumbing was made for a large number of buildings in a subdivision on property owned by four different corporations but which was controlled by a fifth corporation and the lots were separated by streets, they were contiguous within the meaning of this section and therefore subject to the mechanics' lien law. Schwartz v. Shelby Const. Co. (Mo.), 338 S.W.2d 781.
(1968) The words "erected under one general contract" as used in mechanics' lien statutes are not confined to a case where the whole of the buildings are to be completed under one contract, but include a contract to purchase all of the materials of a specified kind for the buildings. Stewart C.&M. Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co. (A.), 433 S.W.2d 76.
(1969) Two tracts or two lots which have only one common corner are not "contiguous" within the meaning of this section. Stewart C.&M. Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co. (A.), 433 S.W.2d 76.
(1971) Lots held not to be contiguous where private street separated them and contractor who began work after subdividing and building of street was not entitled to single mechanic's lien against all lots. United Lumber Co. v. Minmac Investment Co. (A.), 472 S.W.2d 630.
(2001) Section is the exclusive avenue for filing a blanket lien covering more than one building or lot. Concrete Company of the Ozarks v. Catamount Ridge North, LLC, 63 S.W.3d 260 (Mo.App.S.D.).
429.040. When the improvements consist of two or morebuildings, united together and situated upon the same lot orcontiguous lots, or separate buildings upon contiguous lots, or acontinuous or connected sidewalk in front or alongside ofcontiguous lots, and erected under one general contract, it shallnot be necessary to file a separate lien upon each building orlot for the work done or materials furnished in the erection ofsuch improvements.
(1960) Where petition of subcontractor alleged that work in paving and grading of street and driveways for twelve contiguous lots of land was all performed under one contract, that the general contractor engaged to construct the buildings on the various lots and alleged that the contiguous lots were owned by the present owners, it stated a cause of action for a mechanics' lien. Ladue Contracting Co. v. Land Development Co. (A.), 337 S.W.2d 578.
(1960) Where one contract for plumbing was made for a large number of buildings in a subdivision on property owned by four different corporations but which was controlled by a fifth corporation and the lots were separated by streets, they were contiguous within the meaning of this section and therefore subject to the mechanics' lien law. Schwartz v. Shelby Const. Co. (Mo.), 338 S.W.2d 781.
(1968) The words "erected under one general contract" as used in mechanics' lien statutes are not confined to a case where the whole of the buildings are to be completed under one contract, but include a contract to purchase all of the materials of a specified kind for the buildings. Stewart C.&M. Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co. (A.), 433 S.W.2d 76.
(1969) Two tracts or two lots which have only one common corner are not "contiguous" within the meaning of this section. Stewart C.&M. Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co. (A.), 433 S.W.2d 76.
(1971) Lots held not to be contiguous where private street separated them and contractor who began work after subdividing and building of street was not entitled to single mechanic's lien against all lots. United Lumber Co. v. Minmac Investment Co. (A.), 472 S.W.2d 630.
(2001) Section is the exclusive avenue for filing a blanket lien covering more than one building or lot. Concrete Company of the Ozarks v. Catamount Ridge North, LLC, 63 S.W.3d 260 (Mo.App.S.D.).
