“Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” – Anonymous. This case involves a failed real estate development. After it failed, Contractor filed a mechanic’s lien to recover the higher “value” of his services rather than the contract price. The trial court found for Contractor on the mechanic’s lien claim, and against Defendant Bank (the then owner) on its excessive lien claim. The court of appeals reversed both judgments and held that, under CRS 38-22-101 subpart (2), a contractor’s lien is for the contract price; under (3) a subcontractor’s lien is for the “value” of their services. Contractor’s lien was excessive under CRS 38-22-128 because he knew when the lien was filed that two conditions precedent had not been met, and thus knew the amount claimed was not “due.” The trial court’s contrary factual findings were clearly erroneous. Contractor lost all rights to his lien.