52-134. Lien for materials; conditions; limitations.

(1) A lien for furnishing materials arises only if:

(a) They are supplied with the intent, shown by the contract of sale, the delivery order, delivery to the site by the claimant or at his or her direction, or by other evidence, that they be used in the course of construction of, or incorporated into, the improvement in connection with which the lien arises; and

(b) They are either:

(i) Incorporated in the improvement or consumed as normal wastage in construction operations;

(ii) Specially fabricated for incorporation in the improvements and not readily resalable in the ordinary course of the fabricator's business even though not actually incorporated in the improvement;

(iii) Used for the construction or for the operation of machinery or equipment used in the course of construction and not remaining in the improvement, subject to diminution by the salvage value of those materials; or

(iv) Tools, appliances, or machinery used on the particular improvement, but a lien for supplying tools, appliances, or machinery used on the improvement is limited as provided by subsection (3) of this section.

(2) The delivery of materials to the site of the improvement, whether or not by the claimant, creates a presumption that they were used in the course of construction or were incorporated into the improvement.

(3) A lien arising for the supplying of tools, appliances, or machinery under subdivision (1)(b)(iv) of this section is limited as follows:

(a) If they are rented, the lien is for the reasonable rental value for the period of actual use and any reasonable periods of nonuse taken into account in the rental contract; and

(b) If they are purchased, the lien is for the price but arises only if they were purchased for use in the course of the particular improvement and have no substantial value to the purchaser after the completion of the improvement on which they were used.

Source

Annotations

Subsection (3)(a) of this section requires that the reasonable rental value of equipment be determined in setting the amount of a lien, regardless of the monetary amount by which the value of the real estate is actually increased by the use of the rented equipment. Midlands Rental & Mach., Inc. v. Christensen Ltd., 252 Neb. 806, 566 N.W.2d 115 (1997).

Testimony of a witness with personal knowledge is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that items listed on a construction lien were actually used. Mid-America Maintenance v. Bill Morris Ford, 232 Neb. 920, 442 N.W.2d 869 (1989).