Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-33 provides that those furnishing labor, materials or services for the improvement of real property are entitled to claim a lien on said premises. “Prior to the statute’s amendment by the legislature in 1974, our cases construing the language of § 49–33 required, as a condition of lienability, that the work done be incorporated in or utilized in the building (or the appurtenance ) to be constructed, raised, removed or repaired.” Santa Fuel, Inc. v. Varga, 77 Conn.App. 474, 482, 823 A.2d 1249, 1255 (Conn.App., 2003). In 1974, the legislature amended Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-33; however, “the 1974 amendment was not intended to expand the scope of [our mechanic’s lien laws] to include persons whose services do not enhance the property in some physical manner or lay the groundwork for the physical enhancement of the property.” Nickel Mine Brook Associates v. Joseph E. Sakal, P.C., 217 Conn. 361, 363-364, 585 A.2d 1210, 1212 (Conn.,1991). For that reason, numerous services pertaining to land cannot be the basis for a mechanic’s lien such as pipe removal, temporary electrical work, trash removal, cleaning services, and lawn mowing. See Landscape Management Services, Inc.
As regular readers of this blog know, a mechanic’s lien provides a contractor with a security interest in the real property where its work was performed. Because, however, it is not the intent of the mechanic’s lien laws to restrict the free transfer of title of real property, there are two statutory procedures by which an owner may obtain a release of a mechanic’s lien. Specifically, the property owner may seek to substitute a surety bond for the lien or the property owner may seek an order discharging or reducing the lien. In CDO Properties, LLC v. Bogaert Construction Co., Inc., Docket No. CV 13-6018411 (JD of New London), the Court issued a decision staying the property owner’s application for discharge of a mechanic’s lien. Based upon this decision, an owner’s attempt to promptly discharge a lien may be thwarted or delayed by a court and an owner may be forced to live with a lien until after arbitration.
The decision was based upon the Connecticut General Statutes, which require the court to stay any legal proceeding if the dispute is subject to an agreement to arbitrate. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-409 states:
If any action for legal or equitable relief or other proceeding is brought by any party to a written agreement to arbitrate,
As previously discussed in this blog, anyone that has furnished labor, materials, or services for the improvement of real property and has not been paid for its work may file a mechanic’s lien against the subject property. The owner of said property may then make application to the court to obtain a discharge of said mechanic’s lien. If the property owner prevails, the contractor that filed the mechanic’s lien has a statutory right to file an appeal.
As the Connecticut Supreme Court explained in Lichtman v. Beni, “an order entered pursuant to § 49–35b is a final judgment for the purposes of appeal.” Lichtman v. Beni, 280 Conn. 25, 32 (2006). Conn. Gen. Stat. §49–35c “requires that an appeal be taken within seven days of the court’s judgment, but provides an automatic stay during that period.” Id. However, a contractor seeking to appeal an order discharging its mechanic’s lien must also use to seven stay period to obtain an order preventing the owner from recording the court order discharging its mechanic’s lien.
If the contractor does not file an additional motion requesting that the court stay the order discharging the mechanic’s lien,
After a mechanic’s lien is filed, an owner has two options. The owner can wait because, if the lien is not foreclosed within a year, it evaporates by operation of law; or, the owner can file an application with the court seeking an order discharging the lien. If the owner files an application for discharge, the court will hold a hearing during which the contractor “shall first be required to establish that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of his lien,” and, if that occurs, the owner must “prove by clear and convincing evidence that the validity of the lien should not be sustained or the amount of the lien claimed is excessive and should be reduced.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §49-35b. Thus, if a lien is discharged, either there was not “probable cause” to sustain the lien or the owner was able to present “clear and convincing evidence” that the lien should be discharged. In either case, it is evidence that the contractor’s claim for the underlying debt was weak.
The question then is whether a contractor may commence its own action against the owner to the collects the amounts that had been secured by a mechanic’s lien that had been discharged after a hearing.
In Connecticut, the law pertaining to mechanic’s liens is well settled. You will not come across many issues of first impression while trying to enforce a mechanic’s lien and, therefore, practitioners should not attempt to drive the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Such an attempt was made (and failed) in a matter recently decided by the Connecticut Superior Court.
In that case, an assignee of a mortgage brought a foreclosure action and named a contractor as a defendant because the contractor’s mechanic’s lien was subsequent in right to the interest being foreclosed. Normally, if the property proceeds all the way through the foreclosure process, a contractor holding a subordinate lien allows his interest in the property to expire because the only way to maintain the lien is to pay off the foreclosing mortgage but , in this case, the contractor did not give up that easily.
Here, the contractor alleged that the assignee became the “owner” of the property by virtue of the construction mortgage and, as such, was responsible to pay for the work that the contractor performed. The court identified 2 issues that allowed the court to dispose of the contractor’s claim on summary judgment.
- 1
- 2