September 30, 2010
A revised RESIDENTIAL PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTICE TO OWNER form for use in Arkansas has been up-loaded to the website. This revised form should be used effective immediately.
Allen C. Dobson (Contributing Author)
Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Lien Law Online eLert for 9/7/2010 - Alaska
September 7, 2010
Recently, the Alaska Legislature passed House Bill 253 which extends the time within which to file a lien to 120 days. Under prior law, contractors, material suppliers, and service people who have not been paid by property owner for labor or goods, had 90 days from the date of completion of the work, or from the date the service ceases, to file a lien on the property to secure payment of that debt.
This extra time will give contractors, material suppliers, and service people an additional 30 days to work with property owners to secure payment or to negotiate a reasonable payment plan between a creditor and debtor.
This change is effective today, September 9, 2010. Revisions will be uploaded to the Alaska chapter in a few days to reflect the change.
Robert J. Dickson, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Atkinson, Conway & Gagnon, Inc.
Recently, the Alaska Legislature passed House Bill 253 which extends the time within which to file a lien to 120 days. Under prior law, contractors, material suppliers, and service people who have not been paid by property owner for labor or goods, had 90 days from the date of completion of the work, or from the date the service ceases, to file a lien on the property to secure payment of that debt.
This extra time will give contractors, material suppliers, and service people an additional 30 days to work with property owners to secure payment or to negotiate a reasonable payment plan between a creditor and debtor.
This change is effective today, September 9, 2010. Revisions will be uploaded to the Alaska chapter in a few days to reflect the change.
Robert J. Dickson, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Atkinson, Conway & Gagnon, Inc.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Lien Law Online eLert for 9/2/2010 - Mississippi
September 1, 2010
Mississippi recently enacted changes to its lien and stop notice statutes, effective July 1, 2010, to provide lien protection to rental and lease equipment suppliers. Changes have been made to the Mississippi chapter.
David W. Mockbee (Contributing Author)
Mockbee Hall Drake & Hodge, P.A
Click here to visit LienlawOnline.com now!
Mississippi recently enacted changes to its lien and stop notice statutes, effective July 1, 2010, to provide lien protection to rental and lease equipment suppliers. Changes have been made to the Mississippi chapter.
David W. Mockbee (Contributing Author)
Mockbee Hall Drake & Hodge, P.A
Click here to visit LienlawOnline.com now!
Monday, August 23, 2010
Lien Law Online eLert for 8/23/2010 - Missouri
August 23, 2010
New provisions to the Missouri mechanic’s lien law (§429.016, R.S.Mo) take effect on August 28, 2010 regarding the construction of new residential property. It applies to any residential property transferred on or after November 1, 2010. The new law generally applies only to new construction and not remodeling or repairs to residential property. It does include residential condominiums, townhouses or cooperatives regardless of the number of units. The new law allows owners to file a notice with the recorder of deeds of intended sale, and date of sale, of the property at least 45 days prior to the proposed transfer. In that event, the lien claimant must file with the recorder of deeds a “Notice of Rights” at least 5 days prior to the proposed transfer, giving the owner notice identifying, at a minimum, the claimant, claimant’s address and telephone number, the legal description of the property claimed against, and the person with whom the claimant contracted, including address and telephone number. If such notice is properly given, the claimant need not file the 10-day advance notice of intent to file a lien. A claimant’s failure to comply with this notice provision is deemed the claimant’s waiver of all mechanics’s lien rights.
The new law also:
• Imposes specific information that must be included in the claimant’s mechanic’s lien statement;
• Allows the owner to provide substitute collateral in lieu of a lien against the property;
• Limits the effect of partial lien waivers to the amount claimed due at the time the claimant signs the waiver;
• Imposes penalties for failure to execute final lien waivers upon payment in full.
These revisions require changes to three (3) forms contained in the Missouri chapter. Revisions to the chapter and forms will be available online by the effective date. August 28, 2010.
Darcy V. Hennessy, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Hennessy and Boe, P.A.
New provisions to the Missouri mechanic’s lien law (§429.016, R.S.Mo) take effect on August 28, 2010 regarding the construction of new residential property. It applies to any residential property transferred on or after November 1, 2010. The new law generally applies only to new construction and not remodeling or repairs to residential property. It does include residential condominiums, townhouses or cooperatives regardless of the number of units. The new law allows owners to file a notice with the recorder of deeds of intended sale, and date of sale, of the property at least 45 days prior to the proposed transfer. In that event, the lien claimant must file with the recorder of deeds a “Notice of Rights” at least 5 days prior to the proposed transfer, giving the owner notice identifying, at a minimum, the claimant, claimant’s address and telephone number, the legal description of the property claimed against, and the person with whom the claimant contracted, including address and telephone number. If such notice is properly given, the claimant need not file the 10-day advance notice of intent to file a lien. A claimant’s failure to comply with this notice provision is deemed the claimant’s waiver of all mechanics’s lien rights.
The new law also:
• Imposes specific information that must be included in the claimant’s mechanic’s lien statement;
• Allows the owner to provide substitute collateral in lieu of a lien against the property;
• Limits the effect of partial lien waivers to the amount claimed due at the time the claimant signs the waiver;
• Imposes penalties for failure to execute final lien waivers upon payment in full.
These revisions require changes to three (3) forms contained in the Missouri chapter. Revisions to the chapter and forms will be available online by the effective date. August 28, 2010.
Darcy V. Hennessy, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Hennessy and Boe, P.A.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Lien Law Online eLert for 7/1/2010 - Washington
July 1, 2010
In a recent case, Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc., 228 P.3d 1297, ---Wn. App.--- (2010), the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that in order for the Claim of Lien to be valid, it must contain a proper acknowledgment as required under Washington’s Real Property & Conveyance Act (RCW 64.08), which requires certain language to be used and acknowledged by a notary. The language to be used depends on whether the lien claimant is a corporation or individual. The problem at issue in the recent case arises when a claimant is a corporation and relies on the form of lien provided in the lien statute itself (and the lien form relied upon by most claimants). That form does not contain a proper acknowledgment for corporate claimants. Thus, if you are a corporation and use the statutorily proscribed lien form, you risk having the lien declared invalid and unenforceable. It also appears that the form would not be proper for individual claimants because the acknowledgment does not meet the requirements of individual acknowledgments in 64.08 either.
The Washington contributing author has provided a Claim of Lien form which contains 2 options for acknowledgment – one for a corporation and one for an individual. Athletic Field, which was the losing lien claimant, has filed a petition for review in the Washington Supreme Court and one of the issues presented is whether good faith reliance on the lien statute’s form should “save” the lien from being declared invalid. Unfortunately, it could be some time before that issue is decided, so in the meantime, claimants should use the revised Claim of Lien form that is now included in the Washington chapter.
Further, if you have recently recorded a lien using the deemed invalid form, you may be able to amend the claim and use the new form as long as less than 90 days from your last day of work has passed.
Jason R. Wandler, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Oles, Morrison, Rinker & Baker
In a recent case, Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc., 228 P.3d 1297, ---Wn. App.--- (2010), the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that in order for the Claim of Lien to be valid, it must contain a proper acknowledgment as required under Washington’s Real Property & Conveyance Act (RCW 64.08), which requires certain language to be used and acknowledged by a notary. The language to be used depends on whether the lien claimant is a corporation or individual. The problem at issue in the recent case arises when a claimant is a corporation and relies on the form of lien provided in the lien statute itself (and the lien form relied upon by most claimants). That form does not contain a proper acknowledgment for corporate claimants. Thus, if you are a corporation and use the statutorily proscribed lien form, you risk having the lien declared invalid and unenforceable. It also appears that the form would not be proper for individual claimants because the acknowledgment does not meet the requirements of individual acknowledgments in 64.08 either.
The Washington contributing author has provided a Claim of Lien form which contains 2 options for acknowledgment – one for a corporation and one for an individual. Athletic Field, which was the losing lien claimant, has filed a petition for review in the Washington Supreme Court and one of the issues presented is whether good faith reliance on the lien statute’s form should “save” the lien from being declared invalid. Unfortunately, it could be some time before that issue is decided, so in the meantime, claimants should use the revised Claim of Lien form that is now included in the Washington chapter.
Further, if you have recently recorded a lien using the deemed invalid form, you may be able to amend the claim and use the new form as long as less than 90 days from your last day of work has passed.
Jason R. Wandler, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Oles, Morrison, Rinker & Baker
Monday, June 21, 2010
Lien Law Online eLert for 6/21/2010 - Virginia
June 21, 2010
Effective July 1, 2010, the requirements that apply to mechanics’ liens on one and two family residential dwelling units will change in Virginia. One and two family residences are the only types of projects for which Virginia requires notification by the lien claimant prior to or shortly after the commencement of work in order to have a valid mechanics’ lien. In order to have a valid lien, a person seeking to claim a lien on such property must notify the mechanics’ lien agent at the commencement of work that he seeks payment for labor performed or materials furnished. The notice must be in writing and delivered by registered or certified mail, or physical delivery, within 30 days of the first date the claimant performs labor or furnishes material. If the claimant fails to give notice within the appropriate 30 day period, his lien is only valid as to work performed or materials furnished on or after the date that notice is ultimately given to the mechanics’ lien agent.
Under the current law, this pre-work notification only has to be given if at the time of issuance the building permit contains the name, mailing address and telephone number of the person designated as the mechanics’ lien agent. Effective July 1, 2010, the owner or lender has more flexibility in the naming the mechanics’ lien agent. The mechanics’ lien agent’s consent to act as mechanics’ lien agent no longer has to be in writing. The name, mailing address and telephone number of the mechanics’ lien agent is no longer required to be on the building permit at the time it is issued. The party obtaining the building permit is allowed to amend the permit to name a mechanics’ lien agent or to change the mechanics’ lien agent at any time.
The lien claimant’s notice must be now given to the mechanics’ lien agent “then named on the permit or amended permit”. (Senate Bill 105).
John S. Morris, III, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Beale, Davidson, Etherington & Morris, P.C.
Effective July 1, 2010, the requirements that apply to mechanics’ liens on one and two family residential dwelling units will change in Virginia. One and two family residences are the only types of projects for which Virginia requires notification by the lien claimant prior to or shortly after the commencement of work in order to have a valid mechanics’ lien. In order to have a valid lien, a person seeking to claim a lien on such property must notify the mechanics’ lien agent at the commencement of work that he seeks payment for labor performed or materials furnished. The notice must be in writing and delivered by registered or certified mail, or physical delivery, within 30 days of the first date the claimant performs labor or furnishes material. If the claimant fails to give notice within the appropriate 30 day period, his lien is only valid as to work performed or materials furnished on or after the date that notice is ultimately given to the mechanics’ lien agent.
Under the current law, this pre-work notification only has to be given if at the time of issuance the building permit contains the name, mailing address and telephone number of the person designated as the mechanics’ lien agent. Effective July 1, 2010, the owner or lender has more flexibility in the naming the mechanics’ lien agent. The mechanics’ lien agent’s consent to act as mechanics’ lien agent no longer has to be in writing. The name, mailing address and telephone number of the mechanics’ lien agent is no longer required to be on the building permit at the time it is issued. The party obtaining the building permit is allowed to amend the permit to name a mechanics’ lien agent or to change the mechanics’ lien agent at any time.
The lien claimant’s notice must be now given to the mechanics’ lien agent “then named on the permit or amended permit”. (Senate Bill 105).
John S. Morris, III, Esquire (Contributing Author)
Beale, Davidson, Etherington & Morris, P.C.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Lien Law Online eLert for 6/10/2010 - North Carolina
June 7, 2010
North Carolina Business Court Rules: Ordinary Progress Payment Lien Waiver Operates to Waive and Subordinate Lien Priority.
The North Carolina Superior Court, sitting as a specially designated Complex Business Court, recently ruled that an ordinary mechanic’s lien waiver, submitted in connection with an application for progress payment, operated not only to waive the dollar amount for which the contractor could enforce a lien, but waived also the Contractor’s “first date of furnishing,” thereby resulting in a loss of statutory priority.
In North Carolina, mechanic’s liens are granted a superior priority:
“A claim of lien on real property granted by this Article shall relate to and take effect from the time of the first furnishing of labor or materials at the site of the improvement by the person claiming the claim of lien on real property.” [NCGS §44A-10]
Also, in North Carolina, the grounds and consideration required for a general waiver of lien rights are narrowly proscribed:
“An agreement to waive the right to file a claim of lien on real property. . . which agreement is in anticipation of and in consideration for the awarding of any contract, either express or implied, for the making of an improvement upon real property under this Article is against public policy and is unenforceable. This section does not prohibit subordination or release of a lien granted under. . . this Article.” [NCGS §44A-12(f)]
Accordingly, the typical interpretation in North Carolina is that a contractor has lien rights that date from its “first furnishing;” those lien rights may not be waived generally absent the payment of special consideration, and ordinary progress payment lien waivers operate only to reduce the dollar amount of an otherwise intact lien right for all unpaid sums.
In Wachovia Bank v. Superior Construction Corporation, North Carolina Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, 07 CVS 21256, the Court recently addressed the classic priority conflict between a construction lender’s deed of trust and a general contractor’s lien rights. The general contractor first furnished work on April 22, 2005. The construction lender’s deed of trust was recorded May 19, 2005. Accordingly, under NCGS §44A-10, the general contractor’s lien rights take priority over the lender’s security interest.
However, the contractor had made several initial applications for progress payments, for which it had been paid. In connection with those applications, the contractor had submitted an interim lien waiver, stating that the contractor does hereby:
“waive, relinquish, surrender and release any and all lien, claim, or right to lien on the above described project and premises, arising under and by virtue of the mechanic’s lien laws of the State of North Carolina on account of any labor performed or the furnishing of any material to the above described project and premises up to and including the 31st day of May, 2005.”
In a separate affidavit, the contractor purported to waive any claim of lien against the property “with regard to the amount of funds actually paid.”
Relying upon case law construing situations where a contractor’s waiver or subordination of lien rights was expressly bargained for in consideration of obtaining project financing1, the Court in Wachovia found that the lender’s ordinary funding of progress payments constituted the necessary contractual consideration for a general waiver of rights through May 31, 2005. As a result, the contractor‘s lien rights were not merely limited to unpaid sums. The contractor was deemed to have waived all lien rights for the period beginning with the date of first furnishing through May 31, 2005. Accordingly, all of the contractor’s remaining lien rights, including rights to retainage withheld for the period prior to May 31, 2005, were now inferior to the lender’s deed of trust. The court rejected the contractor’s arguments that the waiver was intended to waive only the dollar amount of the contractor’s rights, but to retain all other rights, including its statutory priority. The court rejected the contractor’s suggestion that the result desired by the lender required the execution of a formal subordination agreement.
The case is on appeal.
[1] See, e.g., Mace v. Bryant Construction Corp., 48 N.C.App. 297, 303 (1980).
Steven D. Hedges, Esquire (North Carolina Contributing Author)
Sparrow Wolf & Dennis, P.A.
North Carolina Business Court Rules: Ordinary Progress Payment Lien Waiver Operates to Waive and Subordinate Lien Priority.
The North Carolina Superior Court, sitting as a specially designated Complex Business Court, recently ruled that an ordinary mechanic’s lien waiver, submitted in connection with an application for progress payment, operated not only to waive the dollar amount for which the contractor could enforce a lien, but waived also the Contractor’s “first date of furnishing,” thereby resulting in a loss of statutory priority.
In North Carolina, mechanic’s liens are granted a superior priority:
“A claim of lien on real property granted by this Article shall relate to and take effect from the time of the first furnishing of labor or materials at the site of the improvement by the person claiming the claim of lien on real property.” [NCGS §44A-10]
Also, in North Carolina, the grounds and consideration required for a general waiver of lien rights are narrowly proscribed:
“An agreement to waive the right to file a claim of lien on real property. . . which agreement is in anticipation of and in consideration for the awarding of any contract, either express or implied, for the making of an improvement upon real property under this Article is against public policy and is unenforceable. This section does not prohibit subordination or release of a lien granted under. . . this Article.” [NCGS §44A-12(f)]
Accordingly, the typical interpretation in North Carolina is that a contractor has lien rights that date from its “first furnishing;” those lien rights may not be waived generally absent the payment of special consideration, and ordinary progress payment lien waivers operate only to reduce the dollar amount of an otherwise intact lien right for all unpaid sums.
In Wachovia Bank v. Superior Construction Corporation, North Carolina Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, 07 CVS 21256, the Court recently addressed the classic priority conflict between a construction lender’s deed of trust and a general contractor’s lien rights. The general contractor first furnished work on April 22, 2005. The construction lender’s deed of trust was recorded May 19, 2005. Accordingly, under NCGS §44A-10, the general contractor’s lien rights take priority over the lender’s security interest.
However, the contractor had made several initial applications for progress payments, for which it had been paid. In connection with those applications, the contractor had submitted an interim lien waiver, stating that the contractor does hereby:
“waive, relinquish, surrender and release any and all lien, claim, or right to lien on the above described project and premises, arising under and by virtue of the mechanic’s lien laws of the State of North Carolina on account of any labor performed or the furnishing of any material to the above described project and premises up to and including the 31st day of May, 2005.”
In a separate affidavit, the contractor purported to waive any claim of lien against the property “with regard to the amount of funds actually paid.”
Relying upon case law construing situations where a contractor’s waiver or subordination of lien rights was expressly bargained for in consideration of obtaining project financing1, the Court in Wachovia found that the lender’s ordinary funding of progress payments constituted the necessary contractual consideration for a general waiver of rights through May 31, 2005. As a result, the contractor‘s lien rights were not merely limited to unpaid sums. The contractor was deemed to have waived all lien rights for the period beginning with the date of first furnishing through May 31, 2005. Accordingly, all of the contractor’s remaining lien rights, including rights to retainage withheld for the period prior to May 31, 2005, were now inferior to the lender’s deed of trust. The court rejected the contractor’s arguments that the waiver was intended to waive only the dollar amount of the contractor’s rights, but to retain all other rights, including its statutory priority. The court rejected the contractor’s suggestion that the result desired by the lender required the execution of a formal subordination agreement.
The case is on appeal.
[1] See, e.g., Mace v. Bryant Construction Corp., 48 N.C.App. 297, 303 (1980).
Steven D. Hedges, Esquire (North Carolina Contributing Author)
Sparrow Wolf & Dennis, P.A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
