Mechanic’s Lien for Furnishing Materials is Valid, Even if Materials are not Used in Project

In a big development, especially for suppliers furnishing materials to construction projects in Ohio, the 12th District Court of Appeals late last year found that a mechanic’s lien for furnishing materials under R.C. 1312 is valid even if the supplied materials are not incorporated into the project. After the trial court determined that a supplier’s mechanic’s lien was invalid, due to the failure to use the supplier’s materials in the improvement, the Court of Appeals reversed and found the mechanic’s lien was a valid lien for furnishing materials.

R.C. 1311.12(A)(1) states that mechanic’s liens for furnishing materials arise if the materials are “furnished with the intent, as evidenced by the contract of sale, the delivery order, delivery to the site by the claimant or at the claimant’s direction, or by other evidence, that the materials be used in the course of the improvement with which the lien arises.”

The Court of Appeals held that R.C. 1311.12(A)(1) means that “it is the intent of the mechanic’s lien holder, and not the ultimate use that determines when the lien arises.” The Court of Appeals found that the supplier delivered the building materials to the project site and also intended for the materials to be used in the construction project through its contract and delivery. Since the supplier’s intent was for the materials to be used in the project, the Court of Appeals determined that the supplier’s mechanic’s lien was valid.

Prior to this case, this was an issue largely left unanswered by Ohio’s courts. For the time being, suppliers can rest easier, knowing that they can place a mechanic’s lien on property even if the materials are not used in the project, so long as the supplier can show its intent was for the materials to be used in the project.