contract for those services or recovering under any legal theory, regardless of whether a benefit was conferred. § 327.461; Hosp. Dev. Corp. v. Park Lane Land, 813 S.W.2d 904, 908 (Mo.App.1991); Haith & Co. v. Ellers, Oakley, Chester & Rike, Inc., 778 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Mo.App.1989). Through § 429.015 the legislature authorized courts to impose a lien on buildings, improvements, or land upon which architectural or engineering work has been done; yet, such lien can only be imposed for architectural or engineering corporations (or individuals) “registered” with Board. § 429.015.1; Maran-Cooke, 585 S.W.2d at 40[3]. An architectural or engineering corporation that fails to register with Board simply has no lien to claim. Id. at 40. See In Re Branson Mall, Inc., 970 F.2d 456 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Clearly, § 429.015 lien rights exist only for
holding that the refiling of a tax lien during bankruptcy proceedings did not create perfect or enforce a lien in violation of the  362a4 holding state courts authority under iowa code section 59821 not the lien created there under prevented debtor from claiming the iowa homestead exemption and therefore the debtor could not avoid the lien because the lien did not impair an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled but for the lien holding that unregistered architectural firm performing per contract could not enforce  429015 lien even though the firm registered with board after work was complete but before filing for lien holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond holding that operation of state law requiring lien holder to renew lien in state court was not stayed by section 362 because extension  simply allows the holder of a valid lien to maintain the status quo  a policy not adverse to bankruptcy law but rather in complete harmony with it