## Facts

- Maine Sports Complex, LLC (MSC) developed a sports complex and contracted with Yeadon Fabric Domes, Inc. (Yeadon) to supply an inflatable fabric dome and related equipment to erect and operate it.
- MSC also contracted with Harriman Brothers, Inc. (Harriman) for groundwork and with Kiser & Kiser Company (Kiser) for engineering services.
- Yeadon filed a financing statement with the Maine Secretary of State on July 22, 2002 covering the dome and related equipment.
- Harriman filed a mechanic’s lien on August 27, 2002 and sued to enforce it on October 17, 2002.
- Kiser filed a mechanic’s lien on November 18, 2002 and sued to enforce it on February 10, 2003.
- In a separate forcible entry and detainer action for personalty, the court dismissed Yeadon’s claim after concluding the dome was a fixture, not personal property.
- Yeadon later recorded a fixture filing in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds on February 27, 2004.
- In a consolidated District Court proceeding addressing creditor priority, the court ordered Harriman’s and Kiser’s mechanic’s liens ahead of Yeadon’s security interest and placed Yeadon last among the relevant creditors.

## Issues

1. Whether 10 M.R.S. § 4012 gives a perfected Article 9 security interest priority over mechanics’ liens when the collateral is a fixture.
2. Whether 11 M.R.S. § 9-1334(3) (UCC fixture priority rule) subordinates a security interest in a fixture to mechanics’ liens and other real-property encumbrances when the secured party did not make a timely fixture filing qualifying for an exception.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the District Court’s priority judgment.
- The court held 10 M.R.S. § 4012 applies only to personal property and does not govern fixtures.
- Because the dome was a fixture, priority was governed by 11 M.R.S. § 9-1334(3), under which Yeadon’s security interest was subordinate to Harriman’s and Kiser’s mechanic’s liens.
- Yeadon’s later registry fixture filing did not provide priority over the earlier-arising mechanic’s liens.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes should be interpreted to effect legislative intent and, where possible, to avoid readings that create redundancy or implied repeal.
- A general priority provision in a chapter addressing liens on personal property does not displace Article 9’s specific fixture-priority scheme for collateral classified as fixtures.
- Under UCC fixture rules (11 M.R.S. § 9-1334), a security interest in fixtures is generally subordinate to conflicting interests of real-property encumbrancers, unless a secured party satisfies an applicable statutory exception (including required timing and fixture-filing conditions).
- A prior personal-property financing statement, without a timely fixture filing meeting Article 9 requirements, does not secure fixture priority over mechanics’ liens.

## Conclusion

Because the dome was a fixture, the personal-property priority statute in 10 M.R.S. § 4012 did not apply; under 11 M.R.S. § 9-1334(3), Yeadon’s security interest was subordinate to the mechanic’s liens of Harriman and Kiser, so the priority judgment was affirmed.


Yeadon Fabric Domes, Inc. v. Me. Sports Complex, LLC, 901 A.2d 200 (Me. 2006)