USFN Report: KS – Analyzing Jurisdiction in Junior Mechanic’s Lien Cases

As published in the 2025 USFN Spring Report

BY BLAIR GISI, ESQ. | SOUTHLAW, P.C.∗  |  USFN MEMBER (IA, KS, MO, NE)

Mechanic’s lienholders are increasingly using a small but powerful clause in K.S.A. §60-1106 to foreclose on their junior lien positions—and senior mortgageholders are being caught up in the process unnecessarily. Under the statute, any lienholder with priority over the plaintiff mechanic’s lienholder does not have to be named as a defendant in the foreclosure action. See K.S.A. § 60-1106.

Nevertheless, senior mortgageholders are frequently named as defendants in such actions. If an investor or lender holding an undisputed senior mortgage is named as a defendant in this type of action, it should seek dismissal as an unnecessary party for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

As stated in Columbia Sav. Ass’n, F.A. v. McPheeters, “The purpose of a plaintiff in a foreclosure action naming as defendants all lienholders is not to foreclose the defendants’ liens for them. The plaintiff seeks to have its lien determined to be superior to all other liens and to bar any junior lienholders from foreclosing liens and seeking a second sale of the property.” 21 Kan. App. 2d 919, 919.

Therefore, the analysis of an apparent senior mortgageholder in an action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien is whether there is an actual dispute as to lien priority and whether there is a risk of another lien being recognized as superior to the mortgage. If there is no dispute as to lien priority, any foreclosure by the mechanic’s lienholder would be subject to the senior mortgageholder and, thus there is no position the senior mortgageholder would need to defend. The senior mortgageholder should not have to invest any additional time or resources into the matter upon its dismissal.