The Missing Ingredient That Sank a $1.2 Million Construction Lien: Cuevas Machine Company, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corporation
by: Davis House
On October 15, 2026, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued a decision that bears directly on the enforceability of construction liens in Mississippi. In Cuevas Machine Company, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corporation, No. 2026-FC-00451-SCT (Miss. Oct. 15, 2026), it held that a construction lien that does not clearly state the last date work was performed cannot be enforced, even if the claimant attaches dated invoices.
In this case, Cuevas Machine Company subcontracted with general contractor O’Neal Constructors, LLC to perform fabrication and machining work on the expansion of Calgon Carbon Corporation’s plant in Hancock County. After not receiving payment from the general contractor, Cuevas recorded two liens against the plant property totaling slightly over $1.23 million. Each lien identified the claimant, the amount, and the property, and each included the required statutory notices; however, neither lien stated the date the claim became due. Instead, Cuevas simply attached its invoices to the general contractor to the liens.
Cuevas filed suit to enforce the liens in Hancock County Chancery Court and also asserted quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims against Calgon. Calgon removed the case to the Southern District of Mississippi and then moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), claiming that the liens failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Mississippi Code Annotated § 85-7-405(1)(b).
What Section 85-7-405(1)(b) Requires
As illustrated by this case, Mississippi’s lien statutes leave no room for partial compliance. Section 85-7-405(1) provides that a lien “must be created and declared in accordance with the following provisions, and on failure of any of them the lien shall not be effective or enforceable.” Under subsection (b), the statute states that a claimant must record the lien within 90 days after its last work, labor, services, or materials, mail a copy to the owner (and to the contractor where applicable) within two business days of filing, and that the claim “shall be in substance as follows:”
A.B., a mechanic, contractor, subcontractor, materialman, machinist, manufacturer, registered architect, registered forester, registered land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or other person (as the case may be) claims a lien in the amount of (specify the amount claimed) on the building, structure, house, factory, mill, machinery, or railroad (as the case may be) and the premises or real estate on which it is erected or built, of C.D. (describing the houses, premises, real estate, or railroad), for satisfaction of a claim which became due on (specify the date the claim was due, which is the same as the last date the labor, services or materials were supplied to the premises) for work performed or labor, services provided (or whatever the claim may be).
THIS CLAIM OF LIEN EXPIRES AND IS VOID ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE CLAIM OF LIEN IF A PAYMENT ACTION IS NOT FILED BY THE CLAIMANT WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD.
NOTICE TO OWNER OF PROPERTY: You have the right to contest this claim of lien pursuant to Mississippi law.
In other words, the statute provides that a claim of lien must contain: (1) the identity of the lien claimant; (2) the amount claimed; (3) the location of the real property; and importantly (4) the date the claim was due, which is the last date the labor or services were provided, in addition tot he specific statutory notices regarding expiration of the lien and owner’s right to contest it.
The Parties’ Arguments and the District Court’s Ruling
Calgon’s Motion to Dismiss argued that Cuevas did not satisfy the requirements of the Mississippi lien law because it failed to identify the last date any materials were allegedly provided or work allegedly performed. It emphasized that this information is what triggers the statutory time limits for filing liens and enforcement actions, so the statute’s use of the word “shall” is mandatory language and cannot be viewed simply “as a suggestion.”
Cuevas argued that the invoices it attached to the liens supplied the date the claims became due and that the statute requires compliance only “in substance.” It opposed Calgon’s Motion by characterizing it as being based solely on a “technical” argument and argued that any dispute over the last date of work calls for an evidentiary hearing, not dismissal.
Ultimately, the District Court granted Calgon’s Motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the District Court noted that the face of the liens did not mention any date the claims became due and it was not clear whether an invoice date marked the last day of work, the day the invoice was generated, or something else in Cuevas’s accounting.
Cuevas then appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit, which certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court:
If a lienor attaches dated invoices to a construction lien, but these invoices do not plainly indicate the “the last date the labor, services or materials were supplied to the premises,” do the attachments nonetheless satisfy the requirement that an enforceable lien “specify the date the claim was due” under Mississippi Code Section 85-7-405(1)(b)?
The Mississippi Supreme Court answers: “No.”
Writing for the Court, Justice Griffis held that the statute is plain and unambiguous. The Court held that “in substance” refers only to the sample form language and it does not override the separate command to specify the date the claim became due. In doing so, it rejected Cuevas’s suggestion that it should apply a liberal interpretation of what Section 85-7-405(1)(b) says the claim of lien must contain and held that an evidentiary hearing can test the accuracy of a stated date, but it cannot supply a date the lien never stated.
Finding that the dates printed on Cuevas’s invoices failed to specify that those dates are when the claim actually became due, the Court concluded: “Simply including a dated attachment such as an invoice, with no explanation as to what the date represents is insufficient under Section 85-7-405(1)(b).” Cuevas at ¶ 29.
Cuevas’s Fallback Claims Failed Too
The part of this case that has drawn less attention is what happened to Cuevas’s equitable claims. The second part of the District Court’s ruling similarly dismissed the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment counts Cuevas asserted against Calgon, finding that two important principles were fatal to Cuevas’s implied-contract claims.
First, the general rule is that when a party seeks “to recover for work and labor on the theory of an implied contract, it is ordinarily deemed essential to show that the services were rendered under the reasonable expectation that they would be paid for by the person sought to be charged, and the person sought to be charged knew that the services were being performed with the expectation that he would pay for such work.” Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Indus., Inc., 214 So. 3d 232, 243-44 (Miss. 2017) (quoting Redd v. L & A Contracting Co., 151 So. 2d 205, 209 (Miss. 1963)). Since Cuevas had a valid subcontract with the general contractor, it expected to be paid by the general contractor, not the owner, and the court found that these facts were insufficient to state a claim for relief under a theory of implied contract.
Second, the Mississippi Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “[w]here there is a contract, parties may not abandon same and resort to quantum meruit.” Ground Control, LLC, 214 So. 3d at 243 (quoting Redd, 151 So. 2d at 208). In practical terms, this means that a subcontractor cannot maintain a quantum meruit action against an owner for work it performed under an express contract with a general contractor. See Sentinel Indus. Contracting Corp. v. Kimmins Indus. Serv. Corp., 743 So. 2d 954, 970 (Miss. 1999). In short, Mississippi precedent precluded Cuevas from maintaining claims against the owner for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for work covered by an express contract it had with the general contractor.
The combined lesson is stark. In Mississippi, a lower-tier contractor working under a subcontract often has only one direct path to the owner, and that path is the lien. Lose the lien, and you will likely lose the owner.
Practical Takeaways
Section 85-7-405(1)(b) requires every claim of lien to state four things: who claims the lien, how much is claimed, what property is encumbered, and the date the claim became due, which is the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied. Think of it as a recipe with four ingredients. A cook who leaves one out has not followed the recipe, regardless of how carefully the other three were measured.
For contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers: In Cuevas, the subcontractor’s failure to add the date the claim became due became the most expensive sentence it never wrote. To avoid leaving it out, just track the statute’s own words in the body of the lien: “The claim became due on [month] [day], [year], which is the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied to the premises.” Keep in mind that the date to include here may not be the same as the invoice date, pay application date, or the Net 30 due date. Instead, calculate the 90-day deadline from the actual last day of work and calendar your filing date well inside that window.
For owners and general contractors: Review every lien when you receive it. Check for the due date, the amount, the expiration statement, the owner notice, timely mailing, and, once suit is filed, a lis pendens.
Mississippi’s lien statutes leave little room for error, and mistakes usually cannot be fixed after the fact. Anderson Crawley & Burke represents owners, developers, general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers in construction matters throughout Mississippi. If you need help preparing and filing a lien, or evaluating a lien filed against your project, our construction law attorneys are ready to assist.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice.