As those of you who regularly read Musings are aware, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my law practice and a big issue here at this construction law blog. I’ve discussed the picky requirements of the mechanic’s lien statutes in Virginia and how the 90 and 150-day rules are strictly enforced. However, a recent case out of the City of Norfolk Virginia Circuit Court cautions that while failure to meet these strict requirements may invalidate a lien, it only does so if the owner or general contractor seeking to invalidate the lien argues the invalidity and/or presents evidence of that invalidity either pretrial or during trial.
In Premier Restoration LLC v. Barnes, the Court considered the following facts. The defendant homeowners had a house fire and the resulting damage was the subject of an insurance claim that was paid and checks sent to the homeowners. Premier filed a mechanic’s lien in response to Barnes’s failure to pay for Premier’s restoration construction services after Barnes’s home was destroyed by fire. Premier seeks a decree to enforce the lien, asking the court to order the sale of Barnes’s property to recover its damages or, alternatively, a judgment in its favor. With the Complaint seeking enforcement of the lien and damages for breach of contract, and this is a key point, Premier provided a copy of the mechanic’s lien along with the affidavit that is part of the statutory form swearing that the Owner was justly indebted to Premiere. The homeowners filed a counterclaim for unfinished work, including unfinished punch list work. After a trial during which no evidence regarding either the timeliness of the lien recording or whether any of the work sought to be encompassed in the lien was performed outside of the statutory 150-day window was presented by either side, the defendants filed a post-trial motion seeking to invalidate the lien as including sums for work outside of the 150-day window.
After a review of the record and the evidence at trial, and after finding no cases directly on point, the Court denied the motion and found that the mechanic’s lien memorandum met all of the statutory requirements stating:
There do not appear to be any Virginia cases discussing whether the claimed amount in a mechanic’s lien relating to labor and materials provided during the 150-day limitations period (1) must be affirmatively proven by the claimant or (2) is presumptively valid when certified to be accurate and not challenged by the respondent. [and]
[F]urther, Barnes did not assert that the Mechanic’s Lien improperly included amounts that were outside the 150-day limitations period, either pretrial or at trial, and therefore has waived or is estopped from advancing any such claim.
In short, at the end of the day, the defendants lost their ability to challenge the validity of the lien in the face of the plaintiff’s affidavit that the sums were justly due when they failed to present any evidence of its invalidity either pretrial or during the trial and therefore the mechanic’s lien was properly perfected and the property could be sold to satisfy the lien.
The Court then went on to examine the various contract-related claims and defenses and found for the plaintiff on its breach of contract claim while only finding for the homeowners on the counterclaim as to the unfinished punch list work. For this analysis and the full analysis of the mechanic’s lien issues, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading, and as always, I recommend that you consult with an experienced Virginia construction attorney when pursuing or defending one of these tricky mechanic’s lien claims.
As always, I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.
