richmond – Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA

Bankruptcy and the Virginia Mechanic’s Lien

Originally posted 2015-04-06 09:00:30.

: Image via Wikipedia

Unfortunately, developer bankruptcies are very much in the news these days. This news, while unsurprising in today’s economy and given the housing issues that hit last year, can give heartburn to those contractors that perform the site work, pave the roads, and of course build the houses at these developments. Like Musings has discussed before, bankruptcy of an owner or developer is a real possibility for which contractors and subcontractors must prepare.

However, contractors in Virginia may have a silver lining for the bankruptcy cloud. Virginia mechanic’s liens, being creatures of statute, survive bankruptcy and remain in force even after the owner of the property files for bankruptcy. Even more importantly, the 6 month statute of limitations on filing a case to enforce your mechanic’s lien stops running as of the date that bankruptcy is filed.

Even more importantly, aside from certain specific situations, mechanic’s liens in Virginia gain priority over all other secured liens.

In short, in today’s climate, contractors should not feel that they are completely helpless in the bankruptcy fight. Filing a mechanic’s lien after consultation with an experienced attorney can put a contractor or subcontractor in as good a position as possible should he owner of a project file for bankruptcy.

Please comment below, or subscribe to Musings if you find this of interest.

Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

Originally posted 2015-05-18 09:00:46.

The seals of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After a week of being unable to post due to the rigors of my solo construction practice, I’m back on the blogging train. For those of you that missed my new musings this past week, I hope that you had a chance to look through some of the past Guest Post Friday posts for some good stuff to read.

During the course of my busy week last week, a question came up regarding the mechanic’s lien waivers that commercial construction companies routinely execute as part of the payment process. The waiver forms vary, but each essentially states that in exchange for payment the payee, whether a subcontractor or supplier (or even general contractor) waives its future rights to record a mechanic’s lien for the work that is covered by the payment received. Most if not all of these forms further require a certification that the funds paid will either be used to pay suppliers or that suppliers have already been paid. This general description is not the reason for this post.

Continue reading Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

Originally posted 2012-11-12 09:00:03.

Image via Wikipedia

Musings has discussed mechanic’s liens on numerous occasions.

As we discussed in earlier posts, the general rule is that a mechanic’s lien jumps to the head of the line of liens when filed. This is true in most instances. In the typical case, a contractor puts up a building and, when the owner refuses payment, it files a mechanic’s lien that takes priority over all other liens on that property, including the construction loan deed of trust (or mortgage, depending on your state’s property laws).

However, in Virginia, an exception exists. The Virginia Code provides that in a case where there is a loan on the land with a deed of trust, and then a construction loan with its own security in the land, the first lien holder can enforce its lien up to the value of the original and unimproved land on which it placed its lien. The mechanic’s lien holder takes priority on any value added to the property based on any improvements (i. e. the building itself) over any other liens.

When the construction loan is secured by the same deed of trust as the purchase loan, the mechanic’s lien takes precedence. Of course, these are the general rules. Your particular situation must be examined carefully by an attorney or other professional experienced in mechanic’s liens to determine the priority of your lien.

As always, please comment below and/or subscribe to receive updates on this and other topics here at Musings.

The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

Originally posted 2019-04-24 10:56:09.

It’s been a while since I discussed the role that I believe a construction lawyer should serve. Back in 2013, I discussed how those of us that practice construction law are seen as “necessary evils.” I was thinking over the weekend about certain clients and matters (as I often do, particularly in the shower) and came to the conclusion that the best role for me as a Virginia construction attorney is that of counselor and sounding board for my clients. Sure I come from a litigation background, enjoy working with other construction lawyers here in the Commonwealth, and often the first contact that I have with clients is when there is a problem, but I enjoy my practice, and I believe clients are more satisfied with their interactions with me when I try and provide a more cost effective and pragmatic solution than that which litigation or arbitration provides. Continue reading The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

Originally posted 2014-04-09 16:16:54.

Here at Construction Law Musings, we are quite fond of the Federal Miller Act and it’s Virginia counterpart, the “Little” Miller Act. Both of these statutes allow a subcontractor or supplier on a government construction project the security to perform their work with the knowledge that a bonding company will back their claim for payment. These acts are necessary because a construction company cannot file a mechanic’s lien on a government owned piece of property.

As a general rule the Miller Acts impose almost strict liability on a contractor and its surety to pay for work performed by a downstream supplier or subcontractor. However, as a recent case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear, this rule is not without exceptions.

In US ex rel Damuth Services v. Western Surety, et al., the Virginia based federal appellate court examined a side deal between a mechanical contractor and its supplier regarding payment for equipment supplied to a project in Chesapeake, VA. In the Damuth case, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the mechanical subcontractor (H & L) for full payment for other work unrelated to the Chesapeake project and for payments over time until Damuth was paid in full after finding out that H & L used payments on the project to pay for work performed elsewhere. Furthermore (and this was the kicker), Dalmuth agreed not to inform the general contractor of the agreement. H & L reneged on its agreement and Damuth sued on the bond under the Miller Act.

The Court stated that, in failing to inform the general contractor and surety, Damuth participated in misleading the general and surety. The Court found that, in light of H & L’s contractual and statutory obligation to pay Damuth from funds paid to it on the project, Damuth essentially agreed to accept payment under other terms in exchange for a promise not to “rat out” H & L. This activity kept the General Contractor from being able to deal with the situation and therefore the surety did not have to pay.

The take away? Always be honest with everyone when making deals outside of the contractual chain. I would advise that you, as a subcontractor or supplier, don’t make such deals on bonded projects or at the very least keep the general contractor and surety in the loop. By keeping the general contractor and surety in the loop, you avoid looking like you are in on the scam and also give the surety a chance to protect itself by paying you or at worst having to pay you when you have to make a claim.

As always, I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.