I Didn’t File My Lien On Time…Now What?

Published on August 31, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Over the weekend, I answered a question over on Avvo.com about mechanic liens that gets asked very often, and I thought it was a good idea to share here.

The question is this: What are my legal rights as a contractor if my lien is not filed on time?

The question was asked related to Washington law, but the answer is applicable around the nation. Mechanic liens are an excellent remedy – and I highly recommend preserving and using these rights when needed. However, they are not a contractor’s only remedy.

What other rights does a contractor have? Take a look at my answer here:

Liens are a terrific remedy for contractors. If you’re unpaid and file your lien on time, you acquire security rights against the property itself and are legally able to file suit against parties who you did NOT contract with (i.e. the property owner, if you are a sub).

However, if you don’t file a lien, you still have plenty of legal rights to recover what is owed to you.

Your rights, however, are exclusively against the party who you contract with. You have an action against them for breach of contract. The period to bring this suit is quite a bit longer, between 3-6 years, depending on the type of contract.*

*This is the statute for Washington. Remember that the statute of limitations will be different depending on your state.   In Oregon, the statute of limitations for an action on contracts is 6 years.

It’s important to contact a great construction attorney to bring a breach of contract suit if you are unpaid, and are too late to proceed with lien rights. Find a construction attorney in your area at Avvo.com.

Joint Ventures and Contractor Licensing – Not A Simple Topic

Published on August 24, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

You’re looking to work on a construction project…but you don’t have a license. Surprisingly, this happens quite often.

Perhaps you’re to the industry, or a company trying to work in a neighboring state to take advantage of an opportunity there. Before you prepare a bid or sign a contract, the first order of business is getting legal. And depending on where you are, that usually means becoming a licensed contractor.

When our office is approached with these types of situations, we’re frequently asked if a “joint venture” with a licensed contractor can resolve any licensing deficiencies with the unlicensed party. The answer to this question depends on where you are, and the circumstances of the project.

In the past, we’ve highlighted Mike Purdy’s Public Contracting Blog (it’s an excellent resource on prevailing wage and public contracting issues – previous posts here). Last week, Mike discussed this interesting and popular question on the contractor licensing requirements for joint ventures.

His post focuses on Washington law. In Washington, RCW 18.27.065 provides as follows:

A partnership or joint venture shall be deemed registered under this chapter if any one of the general partners or venturers whose name appears in the name under which the partnership or venture does business is registered.

The key here, as Mike points out in his well-written blog post, is whether the registered member of the venture is in the JV’s name.

Louisiana’s contractor licensing law treats this situation exactly opposite from Washington. Here is a snippet from the Louisiana State Board of Contractor’s website, on their FAQ page:

I want to do a joint venture with a licensed Louisiana contractor. How does that work?

All parties in a joint venture are required to be licensed at the time the bid is submitted. Each party to the joint venture may only perform within the applicable classifications of the work of which he is properly classified to perform (Section 1103 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board).

So indeed, where you are is critical to the question of whether you can or cannot by-pass contractor licensing or registration requirements by partnering with a registered company.

And this becomes another example of how working on a construction project in one state can be legally much different than working in another state. What are some of the other examples? How state laws treat Pay When Paid Clauses, and the different requirements for Mechanic Liens and Preliminary Notices.

Assembly of Good Resources on Oregon Construction Liens

Published on by Scott Wolfe Jr

When you’re not paid on a construction project you turn to the Internet to find answers about collections and mechanics liens. In 2010, it’s the natural thing to do. When you’re sick, you turn to sites like WebMD. When you’re not paid, you look to learn about efficient ways to collect, and you turn to sites like this one.

While we work hard to provide great construction and mechanics lien resources, there’s no need for us to be greedy and re-publish every single feature of the mechanic lien laws. There’s a lot of great information on other websites out there, and everyone once in a while, we find it useful to our readers to stop and point to those other resources.

This post does just that, as it relates to Oregon Mechanics Lien laws.

Let’s Start With Me

I know I just talked about not being self-centered when it comes to posting information, but there’s not harm in starting this post with a re-cap of the resources we’ve published here and elsewhere.

The Lien Law Summary Sheet for Oregon

The Construction Lien Blog’s posts concerning Oregon

Avvo.com Legal Guide published by Scott Wolfe Jr. on Oregon Mechanic Liens

– The Northwest Construction Law Blog’s posts on Oregon Mechanic Liens and Construction Lien Laws.

Some Others

– An Associated General Contractors chapter in Oregon has published the Oregon Construction Lien Pamphlet. The Pamphlet does an excellent job of summarizing some of the notice requirements in Oregon, which while not very complex, are very strict. Oregon’s notice requirement is one of the fastest expiring anywhere in the country – while some states allow for 60 day notices (Washington), or 20 day notices (California), Oregon requires the Notice to Owner be sent within just 8 days! So, better be on top of things. This Pamphlet helps.

– I recently came across a service called “Deeper Web? (@about_law)” From how things look to me, this website scans the web for relevant articles and information on a specific topic, and displays all the results in a magazine-like format in one location. I’m not familiar enough with the website to say it works all the time…but, I am impressed with their “Special Report on Oregon Construction Lien Laws.” Some neat things this site links to is the Oregon Contractors Board’s page for consumer help containing information on Oregon lien laws, and a great discussion on LinkedIn on whether a lien can be filed against someone who has filed for bankruptcy.

– No better place to get information on Oregon Lien Laws than from the horse’s mouth. Here, that’s the Oregon Contractor’s Board. Their website has a number of good publications that can help contractors and property owners, but most relevant here is the Construction Lien Pamphlet written “to inform contractors and consumers about Oregon’s construction lien laws.”

This article was originally posted on Zlien’s topic-specific Construction Lien Blog.

Filing Mistake Invalidates $12.4 Million Mechanics Lien

Published on July 6, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Mechanic lien laws are highly technical, and they frequently change in unpredictable ways (see recent controversial example from Washington). We’ve expressed the sentiment a hundred times on this mechanics lien blog – it’s very easy to make a common lien mistake.

Unfortunately for JE Dunn Construction Co., it seems someone may have really dropped the ball filing its $12.4 Million mechanics lien. The developer of a stalled West Edge project in Kansas City now claims the construction company’s mega-lien has a mistake that invalidates it.

When it comes to filing a mechanics lien, sometimes you only get one chance to get it right. Depending on the merit of the developer’s claim, JE Dunn Construction Co. may have gotten a very frustrating and expensive lesson about the technical nature of mechanics liens.

From the press, it looks like the lien would have converted the debt from an unsecured claim into a secured claim in the bankruptcy proceedings pending on the West Edge project. Without the lien, the claim falls to an unsecured one, making collection a lot less likely. That makes this lien mistake one of the country’s most expensive.

What Could Have Went Wrong?

What could have went wrong with the mechanics lien, you ask? What kind of mistake could invalidate such a big claim?

Funny enough, the biggest claims in the world can be invalidated by just the simplest and most technical oversight. Here are examples of common filing errors that could have cost JE Dunn Construction Co. its secured claim:

  • Poorly Identifying the Property: Most states require the use of a legal property description, and others require specific descriptions of the property. In every state, the requirement is technical, and a lien can be invalidated because of an inadequate description. (See article about describing properties on mechanic liens).
  • Signing Mistakes: Mechanic liens must be signed in a particular way. Some states require they be notarized, some states require a verification with specific and statutory language. The smallest waiver from these requirements can result in the mechanics lien being invalidated. (See article on Washington lien invalidated because of verification error)
  • Not Sending Notice: Some states require notice when you begin work. Some states require notice immediately before filing a mechanics lien. Some states require notice immediately after filing a lien. Failing to deliver this notice, can forfeit your mechanic lien rights. (See blog posts about preliminary and other notices)

Who is Filing Your Mechanics Lien?

Let us be the first to tell you that if you are about to file a $12.4 Million mechanics lien, you have no business filing it without the counsel of a qualified and experienced construction attorney. That is big money, and it’s certainly worth spending a few thousand dollars on counseling.

However, there are occasions when it doesn’t make financial or practical sense to hire an attorney to file a mechanic’s lien. That’s when we really shine. And some law firms - like this one in Georgia – have even recommended using a lien service to file a construction lien in the right circumstances.

For this, check out zlien, a lien filing service that was founded by Scott Wolfe Jr., principal attorney for Wolfe Law Group.

This article was originally posted on zliens topic-specific Construction Lien Blog.

What Happens After You File A Mechanics Lien

Published on by Scott Wolfe Jr

So, you fulfilled all of your notice requirements and you filed your mechanics lien on time. The other party still hasn’t made payment, and you begin to wonder…now what?

Why Mechanics Liens Work

First, before discussing what happens after the lien is filed, let me first address why mechanics liens are effective ways to collect on non-paying projects.

This is an important point when discussing what happens after a mechanics lien is filed because it touches on why mechanics liens sometimes prompt payment without any further action after the filing itself.

Mechanics Liens are effective for the following reasons:

- Without a mechanics lien, you can only sue the party you contracted with. With a lien, you can sue the property owner, those up the contracting chain from you, and the surety bonding the project.

- A mechanics lien can prevent a property from being sold, transferred or refinanced

- Without a mechanics lien, you have no security when you file suit on your breach of contract claim. With a lien, your claim has the property has security.

This is a perfect storm of aggravation to the project and the parties working on the project, that frequently results in getting you paid without any action beyond filing the lien. See how it worked on the MGM Project in Vegas here.

What Happens Next?

But what happens if your mechanics lien does not produce immediate payment? See article on this topic here.

Most states require the lien be “enforced” or “foreclosed.” This typically means that you bring a lawsuit against the person you contracted with and/or the other relevant parties (property owner, prime contractor, surety, etc.). In most circumstances, the lien stays on the books while your action is pending, and if you win…you have the security of the property to ensure you get paid.

Mechanics Liens must be foreclosed or enforced after filingIt is very important to recognize that you only have so long to enforce or foreclose on your lien. If you fail to do this within the specified time frame…your mechanics lien will expire completely.

The time you have to enforce or foreclose on a mechanics lien varies depending on the state where the project is located. We have Construction Lien Law Summaries, and specifically the time period to enforce mechanics liens from each state, available on our State-By-State Lien Law Summaries and Forms Page.

And don’t forget about Zlien’s Lien Pilot, which calculates your project’s deadlines for you (including your deadline to foreclose / enforce a mechanics lien).

What Happens When My Lien Expires?

Well, this is a pretty sensitive subject. You can always bring your lawsuit against the party in your contract (if you are within the statute of limitations for your state).

But with respect to the mechanic lien’s viability, Kelly Davis has a great article published on her blog on this issue: Didn’t Foreclose on your Mechanics Lien? What Should You Do Now?

New Orleans Declares Felons Not Responsible Bidders on Public Projects and Washington Contemplating Similar Rule

Published on May 25, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Mike Purdy’s Public Contracting Blog is so awesome, he got to this unique story that touts a legal link between Seattle, WA and New Orleans, LA before I could. Before getting to the article, let me comment that if your company does public contracting work anywhere in the nation, Mike Purdy’s blog is going to consistently feed you very relevant information on the topic. I highly recommend you check it out, and subscribe to his feed.

With that said, what article am I talking about?

Well, if you’re from the New Orleans area you likely remember the spat between former Mayor Ray Nagin and the city council about whether convicted felons are considered “responsible bidders” on city contracts. After the fight, the vote, the veto, and the veto override, an ordinance (Ordinance Calendar No. 27,892) was adopted designed to stop the city from awarding contracts or grants to folks convicted of felonies in the previous 5 years.

Defining “Responsible Bidder”

What is a “responsible bidder?” Nearly every state and city’s public bid laws use the term, allowing government entities to award contracts only to “responsible bidders.” This interesting question of just what makes a bidder “responsible” was squarely in dispute between the New Orleans mayor and city council.

In the mayor’s veto message, he wrote that “under Louisiana law, responsibility [refers to] likely contractor performance, not the conviction history of a contractor’s principals, members and/or officers.”

Council-member Stacey Head lead the fight against the mayor for the council, arguing that responsibility does refer to the qualifications of the bidder him/her/itself, and not simply whether the contractor is likely to perform. In her veto-override press release, she quotes the Louisiana Attorney General and Louisiana Supreme Court on the subject.

The AG states that “responsibility refers to the character or quality of the bidder – whether it is an entity with which you are safe doing business.” Understanding Public Bid Law, Michael J. Vallan, Assistant Attorney General, February 20, 2008.

The Supreme Court allows an municipality to look at “financial ability, skill, integrity, business judgment, experience, reputation…and other similar factors bearing on the bidder’s ability to successfully perform the contract.” Louisiana Associated General Contractors v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 586 So.2d 1354 (La 1991).

Ordinance Cal. No. 27-892

So, what does this ordinance say? Simplly, it prohibits the city from contracting with certain felons. Here is the precise language:

[Prohibits City from contracting with] any person, corporation, or entity, whose principal(s), member(s), and/or officer(s) have within the preceding five years been convicted of, or pled guilty to, a felony under state or federal statutes for embezzlement, theft of public funds, bribery, falsification or destruction of public records.

The ordinance does not cast a terribly wide net, and so it’s surprising that this caused any controversy at all. The City is not restricted from contracting with any felons, only those who committed a felony that has some sort of public-corruption element.

Responsible Bidder Criteria Important in Washington and Elsewhere

New Orleans is not the only place examining the criteria of a “responsible bidder” in public bid law. As Mike Purdy points out in his post, bidder responsibility is a hot topic in Washington, where a task force was created by the Capital Projects Advisory Review Board (CPARB) to “address concerns by contractors of how public agencies are using responsibility criteria.”

tThe CPARB has released Guidelines on Bidder Responsibility (check them out, and the CPARB page here). The criteria guidelines released by CPARB are much broader than the New Orleans ordinance, requiring consideration of things like delinquent state taxes, on-going lawsuits and the like.

One difference between the “Guidelines” and the “ordinance” is, of course, that the New Orleans ordinance actually prohibits a class of persons from being considered a responsible bidder, while the guidelines only offers suggestions as to what municipalities should consider when selecting a responsible bidder. Will Washington take the next step and mandate the elimination of certain bidders? Mike Purdy points out that they have the power:

Under RCW 39.04.350, a public agency in Washington State could establish Supplemental Bidder Responsibility Criteria similar to the New Orleans measure on not contracting with firms whose owners are convicted felons. The Task Force on Bidder Responsibility will hold its second meeting on May 20, 2010.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Construction Law Monitor.

Can I File A Mechanics Lien For This?

Published on April 22, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Lien laws vary from state-to-state, but across the country it’s a consistent principle that contractors and suppliers can only file mechanic’s liens for work they perform on a construction improvement project.

This begs the very important questions – what is a construction improvement project? And beyond that, what is a construction improvement?

With respect to Virginia’s law on the issue, the Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law Blog just posted on this topic: The Line Between Furniture and Fixtures: What Constitutes An Improvement, Part II. The post quotes a recent federal civil case, Summit Community Bank v. Blue Ridge Shadows Hotel & Conference Center, LLC, whereby the judge distinguished between installed cabinets (which can be liened) and furniture delivered to the project (which cannot be liened) saying:

It is not sufficient for materials to simply add value to a building by their mere presence without any further connection to the building.

The law in Washington and Oregon is very similar to Virginia. In both of these states, claimants may lien for work they perform in the “improvement of real property” or work used “in the construction of any improvement.”

Louisiana’s lien law is a bit more unique in this regard, and perhaps the most unique in the nation. In Louisiana, claimants may file a lien whenever they perform services in connection with a “Work.” A “Work” is defined as follows by the statute (LA RS 9:4808):

A work is a single continuous project for the improvement, construction, erection, reconstruction, modification, repair, demolition, or other physical change of an immovable or its component parts.

I once represented a claimant in a Louisiana action against it to remove a mechanics lien, whereby I submitted a memorandum to the court distinguishing “work” (little w” from “Work” required by the statute (big w). I quoted the 1985 Louisiana Fourth Circuit case Lake Forest, Inc. v. Crilot Co., et al (466 So.2d 61) wherein a subcontractor’s lien against a property for excavation work related to the operation of a sand pit was challenged.

Interesting about this case is that there was no building or “improvement,” but the lien was found valid because the work was considered a “Work,” with the court explaining as follows:

Although “improvement” language is used in this general statement, La. R.S. 9:4808 contains a broader wording. The definition of “work” as “a single continuous project for the improvement…or other physical change of an immovable…” appears to apply to this unique sand pit operation.

We conclude that this sand pit…was designed to improve Lake Forest’s property. At the very least the operation was for the “modification…or other physical change of an immovable.”

Summary

Here is a short summary of this post. It’s important to know what is and what is not an “improvement” to determine whether you can in fact file a construction lien for the work or materials you provided. It’s also important to answer that question within the context of the laws applicable to your project. Most of the stuff is black & white…but in some cases, there can be a little gray.

This article was originally posted on Express Lien’s topic-specific Construction Lien Blog.

Common Contract Provisions to Avoid and Prepare for Collections

Published on April 20, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Preparing and signing a comprehensive construction contract is your construction company’s best way to take a proactive approach to collections.

A good contract can help your company avoid collection scenarios by:

  • Clarifying the scope of work and its costs, to avoid disputes;
  • Stipulating that one party can recover attorneys fees from the other in the case of non-payment, to give your company some leverage against the non-paying party (as above-discussed, the general rule in America is that attorney fees are not collectible);
  • Providing for monetary penalties in the case of non-payment to give non-paying parties an incentive to pay on time;
  • Providing for the recovery of interest on overdue accounts, to avoid losing interest on money owed to you and to offer non-paying parties an incentive to pay on time;
  • Providing for Alternative Dispute Resolution to ensure that disputes over payment are resolved as quickly and inexpensively as possible.

There are many “form” construction contracts out in the market, with the most common form contracts being the contract documents periodically updated by the American Institute of Architects. The Association of General Contractors and ConsensusDocs produce other form contracts.

These sets of contract documents are equal in quality.

They are prepared by and for their respective trades with input from members of the industry and construction attorneys. In general, the documents are comprehensive and completely adequate to meet the goals discussed in this section.

The parties can also alter the contract documents to include extra language establishing an

agreement on issues such as non-payment penalties and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

While the industry-standard form contracts are good in many cases, the documents are also long, complex and expensive, and it’s quite clear that they do not meet the needs of every project. The documents might not be affordable to some generals or subcontractors, and the scope of the documents may be too complex for smaller projects. In these situations, contractors, generals and material suppliers will turn to less complex and more custom documents.

The following contract provisions may be incorporated into a construction contract in attempt to avoid collection situations. Contract provisions are indented.

Attorneys Fees Provisions

Recovery of Attorneys Fees
The Parties hereby agree and stipulate that in the event of a dispute, and regardless of whether or not the dispute matures into formal litigation or any alternative dispute procedure, and further regardless of whether or not a judgment is rendered or the matter is settled, the non-prevailing party will pay the attorneys fees and legal costs of the prevailing party.

As previously mentioned, the general rule in America is that each party in a legal dispute is to bear the burden of its own attorney’s fees. In other words, whether you win or not, and whether you’re completely right or not, you’ll likely have to pay your own way through litigation unless you either fall into a small category of cases where attorneys fees are recoverable by law or you stipulate in your contract that attorneys fees are recoverable.

When added to your contract the above provision will do the latter. It’s language aims to accomplish two things: First, to contractually stipulate that attorneys fees are recoverable in the event of a dispute; and Second, to allow recovery of attorneys fees regardless of whether your dispute matures to a lawsuit.

In certain situations, a court may find that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable because the matter did not mature into a lawsuit, or because it was settled instead of fully litigated. This provision makes it clear that the parties intend to pay the other’s attorneys fees regardless of whether or not the matter escalates to any particular level. In other words, you’ll have the legal right to collect attorneys’ fees from your adversary even when you only hire an attorney to send a single collections letter.

Attorneys fees can add up very quickly, and without a provision like this, it will be hard to justify employing an attorney to collect a $5,000 – $10,000.00 account. However, with the ability to recoup some of these costs, the proceeding might be worth it.

Another common dispute over attorneys’ fees concerns the cost of the attorney employed. Did you agree to a $400 per hour attorney, or a $150 per hour attorney? Did you agree to pay an attorney working on a contingency, whereby he or she would receive 33% or more of the debt?

The courts normally resolve this type of dispute by awarding a “reasonable” attorneys fee to the other party. The judge or jury arbitrarily decides what is “reasonable”.

You can seek to limit this uncertainly through contract as well, and perhaps add the following language to your “Attorneys Fees Provision:”

The amount of attorneys fees shall be equal to the amount actually paid or to be paid to the attorney(s) employed by the prevailing party, and shall specifically include compensating that attorney(s) under an hourly fee agreement, a fixed fee agreement, a contingency fee agreement, and/or any mixture of these agreements.

Do remember, of course, that these types of provisions can backfire. If you’re not the prevailing party, for example, you will foot the hefty bill.

Penalties For Non-Payment & Interest

Unlike the Attorneys Fees Provisions, this is a component of the contract that will not likely backfire on you. This provision will only apply to the party who has the duty of making payments to the other party.

These types of provisions can work wonders for your collection practices if employed correctly.

Many construction companies will include them in their contracts, and offer non-paying customers a “last chance” opportunity to pay the bill without the penalties to entice prompt payment. If the non-paying party continues its failure to pay, it increases the amount owed giving your company more reasons to continue its attempts to collect.

One caution in using these types of provisions is that courts will strike them down if they find the provision to be “unjust,” or above a certain legal threshold. For example, if you have a $10,000.00 contract, you cannot make a $1,000,000.00 non-payment penalty. You also cannot charge an absurd amount of interest on an account (such as 50%). There are federal laws that restrict the amount of interest you may charge on an overdue account, and drafting a contract charging more than this amount will be stricken down and read out of the contract by a court.

The following suggested language might be used in your construction contract to provide for a “penalty” for non-payment of an invoice:

The Parties agree that if the [Owner | Contractor | Subcontractor | etc.] fails to make any payments when due, a late payment penalty of ___% of the unpaid amount will be immediately accessed against the non-paying party. Furthermore, the Parties agree that interest will be charged on the unpaid amount in the amount of ___% per annum or the maximum rate allowed under state and federal law, whichever is greater.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Provisions

Perhaps more than any other industry, the construction industry can benefit greatly from the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution programs. Construction projects both big and small are very prone to dispute, and they are usually complex in nature.

The traditional litigation of these claims is lengthy, costly, and heard before a judge or jury with little to no technical knowledge to aid them in understanding the merits of the case.

Accordingly, an ADR option – although still at an expense – will result in a resolution procedure that is faster, less expensive and tried before someone who has construction experience and/or
knowledge.

For these reasons, it’s normally quite beneficial to you to enter into a contract electing to resolve disputes through ADR.

Making this election is quite simple. Generally speaking, to subject the parties to ADR you can simply add a one-line sentence at the end of your contract that provides “the parties will resolve any disputes through arbitration.” The provision, of course, can also get more detailed. It can go into the type of arbitration, the number of arbitrators, the rules governing evidence and discovery, the location of the arbitration, the name of the arbitrator, etc., etc.

One simple, yet complete arbitration provision is as follows:

The Parties hereby agree to resolve all claims and disputes through binding arbitration. The arbitration shall be governed by the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The parties agree to hold the arbitration in the city where the project job-site is located.

It is also common to require mediation (an informal process whereby the parties attempt to reconcile their differences without the threat of a binding judgment) prior to arbitration (a more formal proceeding that ends in a binding judgment). This is usually more beneficial to those involved in a larger construction project than those in a smaller project, as the extra procedure would come at extra expense. Nevertheless, you would simply add the following sentence before your arbitration provision:

The Parties hereby agree that as a condition precedent to arbitration, they will mediate all claims and disputes through the American Arbitration Association.

Note that you can choose any arbitration provider, but that for the purposes of this Toolkit we have used the AAA, a popular national outfit.

Conclusion

One of your most successful collection practices – smart contracting – requires work before the construction project even begins, and doesn’t seem at all like a “collection practice.”

In reality, however, strong construction provisions can properly position you against your adversaries in the event of a dispute over payment. The better your position, the more leverage you have, and the more leverage you have the easier it is to find success recovering on non-paying accounts.

This article originally published in the Louisiana Contractor’s Collections Toolkit.

Problems Can Arise When Using One Contract in Multiple States

Published on April 16, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Bowie & Jenson’s Construction Law Forum blog just posted about a case out of the U.S. Fourth Circuit that demonstrates problems that may arise when a contractor uses one form contract in two different states. In the 4th Circuit case discussed, Universal Concrete Products v Turner Construction Company, Maryland and Virginia were the bordering states involved, and the legal issue related to a “pay when paid” provision.

In Virginia, “pay when paid” provisions conditions any payment to a subcontractor on the general contractor receiving payment from the owner. If the general contractor never receives payment, the general contractor never needs to pay the subcontractor.

In Maryland, however, the “pay when paid” provision is not so strong. Maryland distinguishes “pay when paid” clauses from “pay if paid” clauses, considering the first type of provision one requiring payment to the subcontractor within a “reasonable time” after work is concluded, and the second type of provision requiring payment only if and after payment is received from the owner.

The subtle difference in the law was a big difference to the general contractor, who was likely using the same contract in both Maryland and Virginia.

While we don’t practice in Maryland and Virginia, the problem here isn’t isolated to those two states. This problem can arise between any two bordering states.

Our clients in Washington and Oregon frequently work in each other’s state. Our clients in Louisiana frequently work in Mississippi or Texas. While “business” between the two states may feel seamless to the business owners, the laws can be drastically different.

Washington Appeals Case Confirms Lien Requirements Are Technical, But Fighting Liens Risky

Published on April 5, 2010 by Scott Wolfe Jr

Alan Middleton of the Washington Construction Law Blog published a pithy update to its site last week concerning mechanic liens in Washington State. In “Battle of the Lien Forms: Claims of Lien Must Strictly Comply with the Lien Statute,” Alan reports on a recent Division II appeal decision that “underscores the need…to comply with the lien statute.” The case is Williams v. Athletic Field Inc.

Alan’s right. This decision really accentuates just how technical lien statutes are in Washington. More interesting to me, however, was the decision to award the loser of the suit attorneys fees, which accentuates how risky it is to litigate the validity of a Washington construction lien.

Form, Form, Form – How to Sign A Lien

RCW 60.04.091 requires all mechanics liens to be “signed by the claimant or some person authorized to act on his or her behalf…” The statute itself has an example form for the lien (see here), and a specific form for the claimant’s or agent’s signature.

The Division II decision released just last month (March 2010) was actually a re-consideration of the original decision. On the matter’s first hearing, the appeals court ruled that a lien filing corporation could sign on behalf of the claimant, as the statute allows an authorized agent to sign the lien. The court was then urged to reconsider its decision, and specifically consider the manner that the lien filing corporation signed the document.

The lien filing corporation was a corporation, and they signed the lien for the claimant using the general form provided by the legislature. The property owner argued that the lien corporation was required to sign the lien using the corporate form for authenticated signatures in Washington.

The form used by the lien filing company stated as follows:

I am the claimant (or attorney of the claimant, or administrator, representative, or agent of the trustees of an employee benefit plan) above named; I have read or heard the foregoing claim, read and know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true and correct and that the claim of lien is not frivolous and is made with reasonable cause, and is not clearly excessive under penalty of perjury.

However, the Court held that 60.04.091(2) requires the notice of claim be acknowledged pursuant to Chapter RCW 64.08. Therefore, despite the “lien form” in the statute having the above attestation clause, since a corporation was signing the attestation clause should have complied with RCW 64.08.070, and have the following form for corporate acknowledgement:

On this ___ day of _____, 20___, before me personally appeared ________, to me known to be the (president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other authorized officer or agent, as the case may be) of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.

The attestation was not sufficient, and because of this technical defect, the lien was declared null and void.

Lien Declared Invalid, but Lien Claimant Wins Attorneys Fees

Earlier this year, I wrote a blog post about the risks of litigating a construction line in Washington. This Athletic Field decision really underlines the risks of litigating a construction lien.

According to RCW § 60.04.081(4), if someone files suit to have a construction lien removed from property records, someone is going home with attorneys fees. If the lien is declared “frivolous and made without reasonable cause, or clearly excessive,” the property owner or interested party gets attorneys fees. If the lien is not declared “frivolous,” the lien claimant gets attorneys fees.

There’s just one wild card: “Although all frivolous liens are invalid, not all invalid liens are frivolous.” Intermountain Elec., Inc. v. G-A-T Bros. Constr., Inc., 115 Wn. App. 384, 394 (2003).

So, what happens when a lien is declared invalid, but not frivolous? That’s exactly what happened in Athletic Field.

The Court in Athletic Field held that while the lien was invalid because of the erroneous attestation clause, it was not frivolous because construction of §60.04.091 presented a debatable issue of law. The result: Athletic Field, the lien claimant, lost its lien right but was awarded all of its attorneys fees in defending the action to declare the lien invalid.

So, the loser was awarded attorneys fees.

What This Means

This decision largely means three things:

  1. Make sure your lien meets the technical requirements of the lien statutes
  2. Washington liens are very powerful, because even invalid liens are risky to litigate and invalidate
  3. If you want to challenge a Washington construction lien, tread carefully

This article was originally posted on Express Lien’s topic-specific Construction Lien Blog.


Search

Wolfe Law Group, L.L.C.
Northwest Construction Law Blog
3232 First Ave S.
Seattle, Washington 98134
(206) 801-1600 F: (866) 761-8934
Oregon office open by appointment

Keywords: Construction law, washington,
oregon, green building law, green building
LEED AP, Seattle, Portland, mechanic lien
construction dispute, construction contract
construction blog, northwest law,
northwest construction law