skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Lien Law Online eLert for 2/17/2016 - New Jersey
February
17, 2016
The New
Jersey chapter of Lienlawonline.com has been updated with the latest cases
through the end of 2015. Two recent cases address the applicability of
the New Jersey Construction Lien Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-1 et seq., and Municipal
Mechanic's Lien Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:44-125 et seq., in the context
of public-private partnerships, so-called "P3 projects." In Morris
County Improvement Authority v. Power Partners Mastec, LLC, No. A-5082,
12T4, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 634 (App. Div.), certif. granted,
218 N.J. 532 (2014), the Appellate Division refused to enforce a
subcontractor's liens (totaling $50 million) that it had filed under both
statutes. As it relates to the municipal mechanic's liens, the Court held
that the County Improvement Authorities Law, N.J.S.A. 40:37A-127,
immunized the Morris County an Somerset Improvement Authorities from municipal
mechanic's liens. As for the construction liens, the Court held that they
could not attach to the municipal bond funds, because such liens may only attach
to real estate (or a leasehold interest therein). The New Jersey Supreme
Court granted certification in this case and will review the interplay between
the County Improvement Authorities Law and the Municipal Mechanic's Lien Law.
In EnviroFinance
Group, LLC v. Envt'l Barrier Co., LLC, 440 N.J. Super. 325 (App. Div.
2015), the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's determination that
construction liens on a project built on wetlands owned by the Meadowlands
Conservation Trust could not be discharged. The lower court found that
the liens were properly asserted against a private leasehold interest and
assets and not against the public realty. The Appellate Division likewise
rejected the exemption for the public improvement liens in the Constr! uction
Lien Law ("No liens shall attach nor a lien claim be filed...[f]or public
works or improvements to real property contracted for and awarded by a public
entity ....") N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-5(b). The Court rejected plaintiff's
argument that this provision for "improvements to real property" is
not contingent upon a project being "contracted for and awarded by a
public entity."
Dennis A.
Estis, Contributing Author/Steven Nudelman, Contributing Author
Greenbaum,
Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
Hello everyone, I'm Patricia Sherman in Oklahoma USA right now. I would like to share with you my experience of borrowing USD $185,000.00 to clear my bank draft and start a new business. It all started when I lost my house and I took my stuff because of the bank policy and I met some bills and some personal needs. So I became very desperate and started looking for funds in every way. Fortunately for me, a friend of mine, Linda told me about a credit company firm, I was intrigued by the fraud, but I was intrigued by my situation and had no choice but to get advice from my friend about this company. contacting them really doubted me because of my past experience with online lenders, did you know that little? '' Elegantloanfirm@hotmail.com This company has been very helpful to me and my colleague and today, thanks to this credit company, the proud owner of well-organized work and responsibilities, they smiled back at me. So if you really need to grow or start your own business, or if you really need to borrow money in any financial hardship, we recommend you find a financial development opportunity in your business today. {E-mail:} Elegantloanfirm@hotmail.com ... online for credit not a victim of scam. Thank you.
ReplyDelete