In the recent case of Brock v. Pilot Corporation, a mechanic’s lien claimant tried to find a way around the fact that he failed to comply with the mechanic’s lien statute, KRS 376.010, because he failed to give notice of the intent to file a mechanic’s lien to the owner within120 days of the his last labor on the project. The trial court granted summary judgment for the owner. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed.The claimant, a subcontractor, argued that the general contractor was the “agent” of the owner and because he had been “in touch” with the general contractor, this satisfied the notice provision of the statute. The Court of Appeals would have none of it. They made note that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous.

The Court also affirmed the lower courts ruling on the subcontractor’s claim of unjust enrichment. The owner was able to demonstrate at the trial court level that the owner had paid the general contractor the entire contract price.

In property law, old decisions are good decisions. New real property decisions tend to be rare things. However, a recent Kentucky Court of Appeals decision decided an issue of first impression in regard to real property law in Kentucky. As such, it is worthy of note.

In J.R. Watts and Lillian E. Watts v. Harry D. (Jack) Simpson and MW Development Services (Midwest) LLC, the Kentucky Court of Appeals was confronted with the question of whether or not a provision for specific performance could be enforced against an assignee who had taken nothing more than a simple assignment. This issue had not been decided before in Kentucky.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals adopted the position of the Seventh Cir. decision in Kneberg v. H.L. Green Co., 89 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1937). The Seventh Cir. in that case held that absent a specific agreement to the contrary, a seller of real property cannot force specific performance from someone who simply had been assigned the right to purchase the land.