construction law attorney Archives - Page 2 of 4 - Attorney Scott S. Orenstein

A Recent Superior Court Decision May Affect Subcontractor/Supplier Mechanic’s Liens

In a recent decision, the Superior Court discharged the mechanic’s liens of several subcontractors, because the general contractor had already filed a lien for the unpaid contract balance. Wegrzyniak v. Hanley Constr., LLC, WL 5706192 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2017). Insofar as any substantial construction project will involve a general contractor, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and suppliers, there are obviously many potential lien claimants. Nonetheless, the court said that “[f]or good reasons, the mechanic’s lien statutes don’t permit multiple liens,” and with regard to the subcontractor whose lien included a claim for extra work, the court said that “[w]ithout an agreement to support the additional work…, [the subcontractor’s] lien must be discharge.” Id. In light of the foregoing, Wegrzyniak may stand for the proposition that subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and/or suppliers are precluded from filing mechanic’s liens when the general contractor files a mechanic’s lien covering the entire project, but, in my opinion, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and suppliers should continue filing their own mechanic’s liens.

To summarize the reasoning of the Wegrzyniak decision in plain English, because the court understood that the property owner should not be held liable for more than the amount it agreed to pay the general contractor,

Recent Decision Demonstrates the Importance of Complying with Contract Notice Provisions

A common provision in construction contracts requires a contractor to give notice to the owner within a certain number of days of an event giving rise to a claim. Such provisions have a reasonable basis insofar as they ensure an owner will have a reasonable opportunity to investigate the conditions for which a claim for additional compensation is being made. Traditionally, such notice provisions were not strictly enforced. The general approach seemed to be that — provided the owner was not prejudiced by any delay in giving notice of claim — a claim that was not submitted within the specified time limit would not be barred. The more recent trend, however, has been to more strictly construe such provisions.

In J. Wm. Foley, Inc. v. United Illuminating, the Appellate Court held that the contractor’s failure to submit its delay claim within the ten-day time limit specified by the contract was a bar to the claim. This decision is potentially troublesome for a couple of reasons: First, there is no reference to the owner suffering any prejudice as a result of the delay. Second, the decision indicated that the submission of the delay claim required a critical path analysis of the delay.

There’s a New Proposed Law Regarding Emergency Services That Everyone Should Support

Parties are free to enter into contracts with any terms and conditions to which they both agree — but that right is not absolute. Certain contract terms are void by statute or case law based upon public policy considerations. For example, in Connecticut, the General Statutes do not allow contractors to prospectively waive their mechanic’s lien rights and the General Statutes do not allow contracting parties to have another state’s laws govern a dispute arising out of a construction project within Connecticut. However, the most onerous example of a statute that potentially voids an otherwise enforceable contract is the Home Improvement Act.

As previously discussed here, the Home Improvement Act can lead to unfair results. As upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court, any contract that does not contain certain elements required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-429 is unenforceable and the contractor that enters into such an agreement with an owner may also be held liable for a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Under the terms of the Home Improvement Act, a contract that does not include notice of cancellation rights violates the statute. Thus, the owner of any home improvement project must be allowed three business days to cancel a home improvement contract after it is executed.

Scott Orenstein
02.21.2017
Connecticut Construction Law, Construction Attorney, Construction Law, Contract Law, Home Improvement Act
0 Comment

A Mechanic’s Lien: Something Simple That’s Been Made Complicated

One of the first things I was ever taught about mechanic’s liens is that the legislation’s original intent was for a contractor to be able to perfect a mechanic’s lien without the aid of an attorney. If that’s true, the system is not working as intended. Of course, that is not surprising given the complicated legislation and its arguably inconsistent interpretation.

A mechanic’s lien is unique insofar as it allows a contractor to obtain an interest in real property without requiring any kind of hearing or notice. As long as the lien documents are properly prepared, recorded, and served, the lien is in place. In addition, the fact that mechanic’s liens have priority dates that relate back to the first day that the contractor performs work and/or supplies materials, mechanic’s liens that did not exist when a mortgage was given or the property was sold can appear on the land records after such transactions and take priority over an earlier filed mortgage and/or encumber property owned by someone who was not the property owner at the time the work was performed, materials were supplied and/or services were rendered.

Of course, reading the statutes is not sufficient to completely understand mechanic’s liens.

Basing a Claim on the Total Cost Approach is Likely Throwing Good Money After Bad

Construction projects never go completely as planned. Construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers all realize that changes in the work may be required for any number of reasons. For example, an area of the site may not become available due to the lack of an easement; there may be poor communication and/or coordination between trades; plans and/or specifications may contain certain deficiencies; critical shipments may be delayed; or, as allowed by most construction contracts, the owner simply may make design changes after the commencement of the work. One or more of the foregoing situations arises on almost every project. As a result, it is expected that construction schedules will be periodically updated during a project to address where the actual performance of the work was not completed in accordance with the original schedule.

Schedule revisions are so commonplace that some specifications require construction schedules to be updated on a monthly basis with two or three-week “look aheads” provided in between schedule revisions. The goal is not to complete the work in accordance with some original plan that Nostradamus would not be able to accurately create. The goal is to complete the work by the completion date no matter what problems arise.

Contractual Time Limits for Providing Notice of Claim Must be Taken Seriously

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a decision that should cause every contractor some concern. In J. WM. Foley Inc. v. United Illuminating Co., 158 Conn. App. 27 (Conn.App. 2015), the Appellate Court upheld a decision that denied a contractor’s $4.7 million delay claim because the contractor did not provide proper notice of the claim within the 10 days required by the contract. The case is disconcerting because the court’s decision appears to be based upon the contractor’s failure to strictly comply with the contract’s notice provision. There is no discussion indicating that the owner was harmed or prejudiced by the delay in receiving notice of the claim. Moreover, the decision acknowledges that the contractor had provided the owner with notice of events giving rise to the claim. In fact, despite denying the delay claim, the trial court awarded the plaintiff over one million dollars for its direct costs, which arose out of the same facts as the delay claim.

The project underlying the dispute in J. WM. Foley Inc. was the construction of a utility pipeline. The parties’ agreement stated that the contractor was expected to encounter subsurface obstructions and that the contractor would be entitled to additional compensation associated with same.

Only the “Owner” may seek Judicial Discharge of Mechanic’s Liens

The Connecticut Superior Court recently decided a case of first impression regarding the right to file an application for discharge of mechanic’s liens. The court in Grade A Mkt., Inc. v. Surplus Contrs., LLC held that a lessee did not have “standing” to file an application for discharge of mechanic’s liens and dismissed the tenant’s application. Grade A Mkt., Inc. v. Surplus Contrs., LLC, 2015 Conn. Super LEXIS 1342 (Conn. Super. May 26, 2015). In layman’s terms, “standing” is the right to have the court decide your case. The Grade A Mkt decision is interesting because it limits the ability of a tenant to obtain a discharge of mechanic’s liens even though the tenant’s lease with the owner may require the tenant to obtain a discharge of mechanic’s liens filed by contractors performing work for the tenant.

Mechanic’s liens are a statutory right that the legislature created to provide contractors and/or suppliers that furnish labor, materials, and/or services to a property with security for the alleged debt but mechanic’s liens were not intended to prevent the free transfer of property rights. For that reason, the statutes provide a few different mechanisms by which an appropriate individual or company may obtain a release of the mechanic’s lien.

Recent Supreme Court Case Teaches Important Lessons

It is no secret that public works construction is a difficult business. On any given project there are innumerable ways that things can go wrong. With any project involving excavation and underground utilities, encountering changed conditions should not be a surprise. Of course, such changed conditions are not the contractor’s responsibility. What is the contractor’s responsibility, however, is providing the public owner with proper notice of its claims in accordance with the subject agreement.

One of the reasons public works construction projects are more onerous than their private counterparts is because public owners rarely negotiate contract terms. Contracts that are slanted significantly in the public owner’s favor are the norm. Thus, as the contractor in a recent state Supreme Court decision learned, it is vitally important to read the contract and abide by its terms.

One of the lessons from Old Colony Cosntr., LLC v. Town of Southington, 316 Conn. 202 (Conn. April 21, 2015) is that general assertions of entitlement to damages and/or additional contract time is not sufficient when the contract requires more detail. During the long duration of the project, the contractor in Old Colony repeatedly indicated that each problem that occurred impacted its schedule and costs.

Changes to the Prevailing Wage Law Considered

According to Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-53, all public works construction contracts require the wages paid on the project to “be at a rate equal to the rate customary or prevailing for the same work in the same trade or occupation in the town in which such public works project is being constructed. Any contractor who is not obligated by agreement to make payment or contribution on behalf of such persons to any such employee welfare fund shall pay to each mechanic, laborer or worker as part of such person’s wages the amount of payment or contribution for such person’s classification on each pay day.” The reason for the “prevailing wage” requirement is to level the playing field for those bidding on public projects by requiring non-union companies to pay the equivalent of union wages on such projects. In the last legislative session, Connecticut lawmakers considered an expansion of the prevailing wage law beyond projects owned by the state or its subdivisions.

The considered legislation expands the prevailing wage law so that it would apply to any project which receives financial assistance from the state. For example, if your project is funded—or even partially funded—by a loan or a grant from the State Department of Economic Development,

With Payment Bond Claims, Different Rules Apply to the Bond Claimant and the Surety

As previously discussed in this Blog, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-41 requires each general contractor on a public works projects valued over $100,000 to post a payment bond that guarantees payment to the general contractor’s subcontractors and suppliers. The payment bond also guarantees payment to each subcontractors’ sub-subcontractors and suppliers.

The procedure by which such subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and/or suppliers may make claim against such payment bonds is described in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-42. With the exception of claims for retainage, the statute requires those making claim on the payment bond to submit their “notice of claim” within 180 calendar days after the last day that it worked and/or supplied materials. The statute then provides the surety that issued the payment bond with 90 calendar days to pay or deny the claim. Until recently, both time provisions were mandatory. See Barreira Landscaping & Masonry v. Frontier Ins. Co., 47 Conn. Supp. 99, 110, 779 A.2d 244, 252 (Super. Ct. 2000)(holding that both the notice of claim and the surety’s response both much be made within the time specified by statute.)

With regard to the 90 day time limit, the court in Barreira Landscaping &

Categories

Recent Posts