United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is pending for consideration of Defendants Mayme
Brunacini and La Mame Kentucky, LLC's motion for partial
summary judgment [Record No. 65] The defendants seek summary
judgment with respect to claims in Count I, in which
Plaintiff James Lattanzio seeks a court judgment perfecting
his lien for $37, 000. For the reasons explained below, the
defendants' motion will be granted.
case involves an ongoing legal dispute between Lattanzio and
Mayme Brunacini and La Mame Kentucky, LLC. The
defendants' motion seeks only partial summary judgment on
part of Count I; therefore, the Court will only address the
facts relevant to this portion of the parties' dispute.
At one time, Lattanzio leased farm land from Brunacini but
alleges that he was deprived of possession and the value of
the hay crop he had previously seeded on January 1, 2015.
[Record No. 60, p. 2, ¶¶ 1-2] The hay crop was
later cultivated, in part, by Scott Mallory, a subsequent
tenant of the farm. Id. at ¶ 4. Lattanzio filed
a lien statement with the Scott County Clerk's Office on
March 10, 2016, which was later amended on March 22, 2016.
[Record Nos. 65-1; 65-2] Lattanzio stated in the amended lien
statement that he “did seed, [the] property in 2014 in
preparation for [his] crop and was then denied access to
[the] crop.” [Record No. 65-2] The lien is for $37,
000.00, plus filing and legal costs. Id.
judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes
regarding any material facts and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th
Cir. 2002). A dispute over a material fact is not
“genuine” unless a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party. That is, the determination
must be “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986); see Harrison v. Ash, 539
F.3d 510, 516 (6th Cir. 2008).
moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating
conclusively that no genuine issue of material fact exists.
CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402, 412 (6th Cir.
2008). Once the moving party meets his burden of production,
the nonmoving party must come forward with significant
probative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for
summary judgment. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d
415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). In deciding whether to grant
summary judgment, the Court views all the relevant facts and
inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Kentucky, liens are created by statute, and therefore the
operation, extent, and rights created by the lien must be
determined by the language of the statute.” 3D
Enterprises Contracting Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson
Cty. Metro. Sewer Dist., 174 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Ky. 2005).
‘“Kentucky adheres to the rule that the statutory
provisions for perfecting a lien must be strictly
followed.'” Id. at 445-46 (quoting
Laferty v. Wickes Lumber Co., 708 S.W.2d 107, 108
(Ky. Ct. App. 1986)).
KRS § 376.010(1) sets for the prerequisites for a valid
Any person who performs labor or furnishes materials,
… for the improvement in any manner of real property
including the furnishing of agricultural lime [or]
fertilizer, … shall have a lien thereon, and upon the
land which the improvements were made or on any interest the
owner has therein, to secure the amount thereof with interest
as provided in KRS 360.040 and costs.
KRS § 376.080 clearly and unequivocally states that,
unless the claimant perfects the lien by filing a lien
statement with the county clerk within six months after the
date the claimant ceases to labor or furnish materials, a
lien provided for in KRS 376.010 is dissolved. See
KRS § 376.080.
alleges in Count I oh his Amended Complaint, in part, that he
seeded 60 acres of farm land for the 2015 hay crop. [Record
No. 60, p. 2, ¶ 1] Accordingly to Lattanzio, he was
deprived of the possession and value of his hay crop on
January 31, 2015. Id. At ¶ 2. Therefore, the
last day Lattanzio could have labored or furnished materials
towards the crop was January 31, 2015. Lattanzio has not
alleged he continued any work on the crop after this date. He
filed a lien statement with the county clerk's office on
March 10, 2016, which was later amended on March, 22, 2016.
[Record Nos. 65-1; 65-2; 60, p. 2, ¶ 5] Because
Lattanzio failed to file the lien statement with the county
clerk's office within six months after the date he ceased
to labor or furnish materials towards the crop, the lien was
dissolved and is unenforceable against Brunacini or La Mame
Kentucky, LLC. See KRS § 376.080.
contends that the work done by a subsequent renter of the
property should count towards work done on the hay crop and
factor in the decision regardomg when the six month period to
file begins to run. [Record No. 68] However, he provides no
support for this assertion and it is inconsistent with the
clear and unambiguous language of the statute that states
“within six (6) months after he ceases to
labor or furnish materials.” KRS § 376.080.
Accordingly, summary judgment is ...