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.