Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 2A-306
If a person in the ordinary course of his business furnishes services or materials with respect to goods subject to a lease contract, a lien upon those goods in the possession of that person given by statute or rule of law for those materials or services takes priority over any interest of the lessor or lessee under the lease contract or this article unless the lien is created by statute and the statute provides otherwise or unless the lien is created by rule of law and the rule of law provides otherwise.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2A-306
Oklahoma Code Comment
Title 42 Oklahoma Statutes § 91 in pertinent part states that every person who, while lawfully in possession of an article of personal property, renders any service to the owner by furnishing material, labor or skill for the protection, improvements safekeeping, towing, storage or carriage of the property has a special lien dependent on possession for the compensation due from the owner for the service. The result of sections 91 and 2A-306 read together is that a lessee without authority from the lessor cannot subject more than its leasehold interest to a garageman's lien, but a lessor can subject its leasehold and residual interest and the leasehold interest of the lessee to a garageman's lien. This appears to be a correct result as the lessee of a weekend Hertz rental ought not to be able to subject the car to a lien for repairs even if the repairs benefit Hertz. Whether the garage will a claim against the lessor outside the UCC is not dealt with by these sections. See Williamson v. Winningham, 186 P.2d 644 (Okla.1947) and compare Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Diffee, 270 P.2d 634 (Okla.1954) and Boston Cleaners & Dyers v. Featherstone, 30 P.2d 874 (Okla.1934). In a longer term lease, the issue of whether an agreement by the lessee to maintain the goods should constitute an authorization by the lessor should be dealt with in the lease. See § 2A-301, Official Comment and Wat Henry Car Leasing v. Oliver, 550 P.2d 995 (Okla.1976).
Title 42 Oklahoma Statutes §§ 92, 97 and 131, to the extent they are applicable (they are not necessarily dependent on possession), should be construed consistently. Compare Pirtle v. Brown, 284 P. 898 (Okla.1930) and see Holland v. Whiteside, 43 P. 2d 57 (0kla.1935). See also Oklahoma Comment to § 2A-307.
The 1991 amendments make no change here.