In order to file a mechanic’s lien, the party seeking the lien must have performed work in the "erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure." S.C. Code Ann. §29-5-10(a).  Section 29-5-10(a) further provides that "labor performed or furnished in the erection, alteration, or repair of any building or structure upon real estate includes the . . . work of making the real estate suitable as a site for the building or structure." In Raymond Skiba, d/b/a Skiba Landscaping and Construction v. Majorie Sue Gessner and Terral Monty Matlock, (July 23, 2007), the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Skiba completed work for the purpose of preparing the land for landscaping and not in connection with the erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure; therefore, a mechanic’s lien could not attached to the property and the trial court erred in enforcing Skiba’s mechanic’s lien against the Appellants.

   Appellants hired Skiba to clear and remove trees, roots, and ground debris from their lot. Skiba never received payment for his completed work but, instead, received a complaint letter, which stated that the scope of Skiba’s work to be completed included root-raking and cleaning of the lot to prepare it for landscaping. At the conclusion of the trial on the matter, the court granted Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss based on Skiba’s lack of a contractor’s license, which was in violation of South Carolina law. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-11-20(8), -30. The court found that since he lacked the requisite contractor’s license, South Carolina law prevented Skiba from bringing a lawsuit to enforce his contract with Appellants. See S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-370 ("[a]n entity which does not have a valid license as required by this chapter may not bring an action … to enforce the provisions of a contract").

   Skiba filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and the court re-opened the case so both parties could, among other actions, conduct more depositions. Subsequently, the administrator of South Carolina’s Contractor’s Licensing Board was deposed and testified that Skiba’s contract with Appellants did not involve work in preparation for a building site, which meant (1) no contractor’s license was required and (2) Skiba could bring an action to enforce the mechanic’s lien since he was not in violation of South Carolina law. The trial court ruled in favor of Skiba’s mechanic’s lien and awarded him over $8,000.00.

   The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that, based on the current facts of the case, Skiba’s work was completed for the purpose of preparing the land for landscaping and, therefore, a mechanic’s lien could not attach to the land. In support of its decision, the Court cited Clo-Car Trucking Co., Inc. v. Clifflure Estates of South Carolina, Inc., 282 S.C. 573 (Ct. App. 1984), which held that land cleared and graded for the purpose of a road is not a building or a structure as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-10(a), and, therefore, the court could not allow the attachment of a lien to the land since the work performed was unconnected to the erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure.

   Although Skiba won the battle over whether the work he performed required him to obtain a contractor’s license, Skiba lost his lawsuit because the position he staked out in regards to the need for a contractor’s license prevented him from enforcing a mechanic’s lien claim against the Appellants.