## Facts

- The Akinses (Akins) planned construction of a new home and hired a general contractor to run the project.
- The general contractor handled arrangements with subcontractors and material suppliers; Akins did not negotiate purchases or direct subcontractor work.
- Lee’s Home Center, Inc. (Lee’s) was hired through the general contractor to deliver construction materials for the home.
- Lee’s delivered the materials for the project as agreed, and the materials were used in the construction.
- Akins paid the general contractor in full, including amounts intended to cover the supplied materials.
- The general contractor failed to pay Lee’s for the materials.
- Lee’s filed notice claiming a construction/mechanic’s lien against Akins’s property and sued to foreclose the lien.
- The trial court ruled that a mechanic’s lien arose as a matter of law from Lee’s delivery of materials, granted summary judgment for Lee’s, and ordered foreclosure.
- Akins appealed, arguing it was improper to require payment to Lee’s after Akins had already paid the general contractor (resulting in “double payment”).

## Issues

1. May a material supplier who contracted only with the general contractor enforce a mechanic’s lien against the homeowners’ property for materials furnished for the home when the homeowners paid the general contractor in full?
2. Does the homeowners’ argument that enforcement would require them to pay for the materials twice bar foreclosure of the supplier’s lien?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Lee’s and the order of foreclosure.
- The court agreed that, based on the undisputed record, the furnishing (delivery) of construction materials for the improvement gave rise to a mechanic’s lien as a matter of law, assuming statutory steps to perfect the lien were satisfied.
- The homeowners’ lack of a direct contractual relationship with Lee’s did not defeat Lee’s ability to claim and foreclose the lien.
- The homeowners’ full payment to the general contractor did not, by itself, eliminate the supplier’s lien rights, even if enforcement meant the homeowners would have to pay an additional amount to clear the lien.

## Legal Principles

- Mechanic’s lien statutes provide security to those who furnish labor or materials for the improvement of real property by permitting a lien on the improved property.
- A materialman’s lien may arise by operation of law from furnishing materials for an improvement, with enforceability dependent on compliance with statutory notice and filing requirements.
- Privity of contract between the owner and a supplier is not required for a supplier’s lien claim when the supplier furnished materials through the project’s contracting chain.
- An owner’s payment to a general contractor does not automatically bar a lien by an unpaid subcontractor or supplier for labor or materials provided to the improvement.
- When material facts are undisputed and the statutory requirements are met, summary judgment and foreclosure are available remedies in a lien enforcement action.

## Conclusion

In *Lee’s Home Center, Inc. v. Akins*, 1992 WL 117051 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), the court upheld summary judgment and foreclosure of a material supplier’s mechanic’s lien where the supplier delivered construction materials for a home, the homeowners paid the general contractor in full, and the contractor failed to pay the supplier; the lack of direct dealings between the homeowners and the supplier and the homeowners’ “double payment” objection did not defeat the lien.


Lee's Home Center, Inc. v. Akins, 1992 WL 117051 (1992)