Mechanics Lien

[bartstop]

I am an Electrical Contractor in the state of Kansas. I got a service request from an individual, apparently his house was hit by lightning. I did some troubleshooting and a small repair. While I was working, this individual told me that he was doing a "rent to own" on the property and that his landlord, who is also his employer (very important), told him to find an electrician. He (the tenant) requested that I send him the bill and he would forward it to his employer for payment. After several weeks and several broken promises he (the tenant) has refused to pay claiming he is under bankruptcy protection (filed chapter 13 months before the service call). We called the landlord and he refuses to pay. So, we sent a bill along with a letter warning that we will pursue a mechanics lien if we don't receive payment. He (the landlord) responded with a letter claiming he isn't responsible because he did not order the work to be done.

From what I have been reading about Respondeat Superior, the landlord/employer can be held responsible for what his agent does. It was the employers rental property, he benefited from my services, his employee told me that the employer would be responsible for the payment and it was during regular business hours. I should also add they are in the residential construction business. I believe they built the property (duplex).

Do I have a leg to stand on here? It's not a large sum of money but I feel like they hired me and never had any intention of paying.



Bartstop

 

[latigo]

To justify a mechanics lien based upon the principle of respondeat superior (master liable for the conduct of the servant) the claimant would need to prove:

1. That such a relationship of employer/principle - employee/agent actually existed.

2. That the agent had express authority to engage the claimant's services on behalf of the principle. Or that the agent's authorized functions were such that it would reasonable to assume such authority. (In other words, apparent authority.) Or lacking express or apparent authority, the principle was aware that the services were being performed for his benefit and made no objection. (Estoppel in pais)

But here there is a relationship seemingly independent of that of master/servant; to-wit: that of a landlord and tenant, which does not, per se carry vicarious responsibility in either direction.

Now if you could somehow prove that the tenant in contracting for you labor was wearing both hats and doing so with authority from the landlord/principle, fine. But I seriously doubt it.

(One of my first experiences as a fledging lawyer taught me this lesson. A guy came into the office that had laid carpet on the stair ways in a small hotel. A phone call to the owners of the hotel ended the discussion of a mechanics lien. The lessee had ordered the carpeting without prior approval. And the lessee was not employed by the owners. My guy got paid however, after I told him to tear out the new carpeting.)