Any person performing labor upon, transporting or furnishing any material to be used in, or renting equipment used in the construction of any improvement shall have a lien upon the improvement for the labor, transportation or material furnished or equipment rented at the instance of the owner of the improvement or the construction agent of the owner.
Any person who engages in or rents equipment for the preparation of a lot or parcel of land, or improves or rents equipment for the improvement of a street or road adjoining a lot or parcel of land at the request of the owner of the lot or parcel, shall have a lien upon the land for work done, materials furnished or equipment rented.
A lien for rented equipment under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be limited to the reasonable rental value of the equipment notwithstanding the terms of the underlying rental agreement.
Trustees of an employee benefit plan shall have a lien upon the improvement for the amount of contributions, due to labor performed on that improvement, required to be paid by agreement or otherwise into a fund of the employee benefit plan.
An architect, landscape architect, land surveyor or registered engineer who, at the request of the owner or an agent of the owner, prepares plans, drawings or specifications that are intended for use in or to facilitate the construction of an improvement or who supervises the construction shall have a lien upon the land and structures necessary for the use of the plans, drawings or specifications so provided or supervision performed.
A landscape architect, land surveyor or other person who prepares plans, drawings, surveys or specifications that are used for the landscaping or preparation of a lot or parcel of land or who supervises the landscaping or preparation shall have a lien upon the land for the plans, drawings, surveys or specifications used or supervision performed. [Amended by 1957 c.651 §2; 1973 c.671 §2; 1975 c.466 §3; 1977 c.596 §2; 1981 c.757 §1]
Source: Section 87.010 — Construction liens; who is entitled to lien, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors087.html .
Unpaid subcontractor materialman could maintain action against insurer on contractor’s bond, which promised to “pay all persons who performed work”; overruling to extent of inconsistency, Tait & Co. v. D. Diamond Corp., 228 Or 602, 365 P2d 883 (1961). Jacobs Associates v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 282 Or 551, 580 P2d 529 (1978)
Specific notice to materialman that check is intended for payment on particular project requires that payment be credited toward lien on that project. Empire Building Supply, Inc. v. EKO Investments, Inc., 40 Or App 739, 596 P2d 593 (1979)
Providing drop boxes and hauling them away when filled with debris was act of preparation for improvement to land and gave rise to lien under this section. Abajian v. Hill, 42 Or App 695, 601 P2d 837 (1979)
Damages incurred as result of owner’s breach of contract that do not relate to anything that became part of the improvement do not add any value to the improvement and thus, although recoverable under general contract principles, are not subject to statutory lien. Minter-Wilson Drilling Co. v. Richins, 60 Or App 702, 655 P2d 1060 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Excavation and grading of parking area come within definition of “improvement” and are lienable. Robertson, Hay & Wallace v. Kunkle, 69 Or App 99, 686 P2d 399 (1984)
Claims relating to labor and materials performed and supplied off premises are lienable where lease required that work be done and improvements enhanced value of mortgagee’s security interest. Robertson, Hay & Wallace v. Kunkle, 69 Or App 99, 686 P2d 399 (1984)
Material “to be used in” construction need not become part and parcel of improvement for lien to attach. Rotarius v. Edwards, 147 Or App 484, 936 P2d 401 (1997)
Commingling of lienable and nonlienable charges does not invalidate lien if property owner has sufficient knowledge to question amount of lien or can readily obtain sufficient information to separate lienable and nonlienable charges. A-C Construction, Inc. v. Bakke Corp., 153 Or App 41, 956 P2d 219 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Lien in favor of trustees of construction worker employee benefit plan is not preempted by Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Farmington Casualty Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Or. 1998)
Labor union, union benefit plan trustees and union collection agent are ineligible to sue in representational capacity on behalf of union member who is “person performing labor.” International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 48 v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 168 Or App 101, 5 P3d 1122 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Provision allowing trustee of employee benefit plan
to file lien to collect payments due plan is not preempted by Employee Retirement Income Security Act. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 48 v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 168 Or App 101, 5 P3d 1122 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Validity of mechanics lien in home solicitation sale where notice of cancellation not given, (1974) Vol 37, p 316