Can a Texas auto shop put a mechanic's lien on a car it never actually repaired?

TX AG Opinion GA-0644: Can a shop claim a mechanic's lien without repairing the car?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked whether an auto repair shop may assert a mechanic's lien for administrative and overhead charges under Property Code section 70.001 when the vehicle is declared a total loss and the shop therefore does not repair it. Because the question assumed the vehicle was not repaired, the opinion treated it as a case where the shop performed no repair work at all.

Section 70.001(a) lets a worker who "by labor repairs an article," including a vehicle, retain possession of the article until paid the amount due under the repair contract or, if none is specified, the reasonable and usual compensation. The opinion read that plain language to tie the lien to actually repairing the article. Texas lien statutes are construed liberally to protect laborers and materialmen, but the opinion noted that a court cannot be blind to the plain language of the statute. Because section 70.001(a) limits the remedy to a worker who by labor repairs the article, a shop that does no repairs has no lien.

The opinion also looked at the ordinary meaning of "repair," which the statute does not define. Drawing on Texas appellate decisions, it described repair as restoring or bringing something back to good or usable condition, something tangible like removing dents or fixing parts. With no repairs performed, the shop could not assert a lien for any charges, including administrative or overhead charges. The opinion expressly did not address a different situation, a shop that begins repairs in good faith but does not complete them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Property Code section 70.001 may have been amended since 2008. Confirm current law before relying on this analysis.

Who this opinion affected (as of 2008)

Auto repair shops: The opinion concluded that a shop that did no repair work could not assert a section 70.001(a) possessory lien, even for administrative or overhead charges, on a vehicle it never repaired.

Vehicle owners and insurers: The opinion meant that when a vehicle was a total loss and not repaired, the shop had no statutory lien to hold the vehicle for unpaid administrative or overhead fees under section 70.001.

Shops that start but do not finish repairs: The opinion expressly left their situation unaddressed, limiting its answer to a shop that performed no repairs.

Common questions

Why can't the shop claim a lien for its overhead?
Because section 70.001(a) gives the lien only to a worker who "by labor repairs" the article. The opinion read that to require actual repair work; with none done, there is no statutory lien for any charge.

What counts as a "repair"?
The statute does not define it, but the opinion used the ordinary meaning: restoring something to good or usable condition, something tangible like removing dents or fixing parts.

What if the shop started repairs but then stopped?
The opinion did not decide that. It assumed no repair work was performed and limited its answer to that situation.

Background and statutory framework

Property Code section 70.001(a) authorizes a worker who "by labor repairs an article," including a vehicle, to retain possession until paid the amount due under the repair contract or the reasonable and usual compensation, subject to the notice condition in subsection (c) (Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 70.001, § 70.001(a), § 70.001(c) (Vernon 2007)). Texas lien statutes are construed liberally to protect laborers and materialmen, but a court cannot disregard the statute's plain language (RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. 1985); Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. 2003); First Nat'l Bank v. Whirlpool Corp., 517 S.W.2d 262, 269 (Tex. 1974); Pavecon, Inc. v. R-Com, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 219, 224 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)). The undefined word "repair" carries its common meaning of restoring something to good or usable condition, something tangible like removing dents or fixing parts (Carlton v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 32 S.W.3d 454, 464 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 158-59 (Tex. 2003)).

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 70.001, 70.001(a), 70.001(c) (Vernon 2007)

Cases:

• RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. 1985)
• Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. 2003)
• First Nat'l Bank v. Whirlpool Corp., 517 S.W.2d 262, 269 (Tex. 1974)
• Pavecon, Inc. v. R-Com, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 219, 224 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)
• Carlton v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 32 S.W.3d 454, 464 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)
• Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 158-59 (Tex. 2003)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0644
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2008/ga0644.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts may remain - the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

GREG ABBOTT

July 9, 2008

The Honorable Kim Brimer
Chair, Committee on Administration
Texas State Senate
Post Office Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Opinion No. GA-0644

Re: Whether, under section 70.001 of the Texas Property Code, an auto repair shop may assert a mechanic's lien for administrative and overhead charges when the shop does not repair the vehicle (RQ-0667-GA)

Dear Senator Brimer:

You ask whether, under section 70.001 of the Texas Property Code, an auto repair shop may assert a mechanic's lien for administrative and overhead charges "when a vehicle is determined to be a total loss and thus" the repair shop does not repair it.[1] See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 70.001 (Vernon 2007) ("Worker's Lien"). Because you tell us that the vehicle is not repaired, we assume that the auto repair shop performed no repair work on the vehicle.[2] See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1.

Property Code section 70.001(a) authorizes a worker who repairs an article to retain possession of the article until the worker is compensated:

A worker in this state who by labor repairs an article, including a vehicle, motorboat, vessel, or outboard motor, may retain possession of the article until:

(1) the amount due under the contract for the repairs is paid; or

(2) if no amount is specified by contract, the reasonable and usual compensation is paid.

TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 70.001(a) (Vernon 2007) (emphasis added); see also id. § 70.001(c) (authorizing a worker to take possession only if the obligee signed a notice stating that the article may be subject to repossession under section 70.001).

Section 70.001's plain language compels the conclusion that an auto repair shop that performs no repairs on a vehicle cannot assert a lien on the vehicle. Lien statutes in Texas are to be liberally construed to protect laborers and materialmen, yet a court "cannot be blind to the plain language" of such a statute. RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. 1985); accord Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. 2003) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Whirlpool Corp., 517 S.W.2d 262, 269 (Tex. 1974)); Pavecon, Inc. v. R-Com, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 219, 224 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (quoting RepublicBank Dallas, N.A., 691 S.W.2d at 607). And section 70.001(a)'s plain language limits the remedy to a worker "who by labor repairs" an article. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 70.001(a) (Vernon 2007).

Section 70.001 does not define the word "repair." See id. § 70.001. "In common usage, 'repair' means 'to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken' or, stated slightly differently, '[t]o bring back to good or usable condition.'" Carlton v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 32 S.W.3d 454, 464 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1923 (1993); RIVERSIDE WEBSTER'S II DICTIONARY 580 (rev. ed. 1996)); accord Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 158-59 (Tex. 2003) ("The concept of 'repair' with regard to a vehicle connotes something tangible, like removing dents or fixing parts." (citing, among other things, Carlton, 32 S.W.3d at 464)).

We understand you to premise your question on a vehicle that is not repaired. Because the vehicle is not repaired, the auto repair shop may not assert a lien for any charges under section 70.001(a).

SUMMARY

Section 70.001(a) of the Texas Property Code authorizes only a worker "who by labor repairs" a vehicle to possess the vehicle until the worker is compensated for the repairs. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 70.001(a) (Vernon 2007). If an auto repair shop does not perform any repairs on a vehicle, it may not assert a lien under section 70.001(a).

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

KENT C. SULLIVAN
First Assistant Attorney General

ANDREW WEBER
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee