Posts Tagged ‘Michigan’

Michigan Lien Priority Case – Another Battle Between Mortgage and Mechanic Lien

Lien Priority disputes are always the same: a property is foreclosed, there’s not enough money to go around, and the mortgagor and lien claimant fights about whose claim is superior to the other. Whenever we hear about a new lien priority case, we post about it under the Lien Priority tag (click on it to read).

A recent post from the Michigan Construction Law Update blog called our attention to a lien priority case out of that state. The Michigan Court of Appeals held in First Community Bank v. Montainaire, LLC, et al that a construction lien has priority over a mortgage regardless of whether the general contractor and project owner’s changed during the course of the project.

The general rules about lien priority in Michigan is summarized by the court in Montainaire with the following:

Construction liens have priority over interests that are recorded “subsequent to the first actual physical improvement.” MCL 570.1119(3). However, a “mortgage, lien, encumbrance, or other interest recorded before the first actual physical improvement to real property shall have priority over a construction lien arising under this act.” MCL 570.1119(4)

The peculiar circumstance in the Montainaire case, however, was that the construction project sort of stopped and started up again, or at least there was a change in the general contractor and a second notice of commencement filed. The mortgagee argued that the mechanic lien priority traced back to the time of the second notice of commencement’s filing, and not back to when the project originally began. The court held contrary to the mortgagee:

We believe that the statutory language does not support First Community’s argument that a new project (with new priorities) began when Pioneer filed a second notice of commencement in 2005. Rather, under MCL 570.1119(3) and (4), priority depends on when the mortgage was recorded with respect to the “first actual physical improvement.” MCL 570.1103(1) defines an “actual physical improvement” as “the actual physical change in, or alteration of, real property as a result of labor provided, pursuant to a contract, by a contractor, subcontractor, or laborer which is readily visible and of a kind that would alert a person upon reasonable inspection of the existence of an improvement.” (Emphasis added.) A notice of commencement is not mentioned.

Posted in:     Lien Law Alerts, Mechanic Liens  /  Tags: , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

With Lien Deadlines – The Devil Is In The Details

Last year, we wrote a blog post titled: Think You Know The Last Date You Delivered Materials or Performed Services? Think Again. The point of the post addressed this complex issue:

Every state provides contractors and materialmen the right to lien a project, but they also require these parties to file their liens within a certain “lien period.” The lien period always has a beginning point and an ending point…but the question sometimes arises, when exactly does the lien period begin and end?

While this question may seem simple on the surface, leave it to the court system and lawyers to muck it all up.  Depending on the project’s location, the lien period may begin when labor and/or materials are last furnished, or at the end of the entire project. Even more specific – and perhaps, more confusing – the lien period may begin when the work is substantially complete or when its finally complete. Sometimes, punchlist or warranty work will extend the lien period, and sometimes it won’t.

The Michigan Court of Appeals just released an opinion that addresses this question in that state. Commenting on Michigan’s Construction Lien Act, the court of appeals confirmed that the 90-day filing period does not get extended when a contractor provides repair or warranty work to the project.

Here is the rule in the court’s own words, with the most critical language highlighted in bold print:

According to MCL 570.1111(1) and MCL 570.1104(5), a repair completed pursuant to a contract is an “improvement” and the last furnishing of an improvement commences the 90-day filing period. Thus, for example, where a contractor is specifically hired to repair an aspect of the property, such as a nonworking door or a leaky roof, that contractor is making an “improvement” to the property for which the contractor is entitled to claim a lien. However, as this Court held, in Woodman v Walter, 204 Mich App 68; 514 NW2d 190 (1994), the performance of “warranty work” to correct deficiencies in work performed, or defects in fixtures installed, by the contractor does not constitute an “improvement” under the Construction Lien Act because “[i]t does not confer any value beyond the value furnished at the time the initial installation work was completed.” Id. at 69. Therefore, in such situations, “[t]he ninety-day filing period commences on the date of completion of the original installation work and is not extended by the later performance of warranty work.” Id. at 70. The distinguishing factor between a repair constituting an improvement to the real property, which allows for the commencement of the 90-day filing period, and warranty work, which does not allow for the recommencement of the 90-day filing period, is whether the work in question conferred any value beyond the value furnished by the completion of the original work.

The case is Stock Building Supply, LLC v. Parsley Homes of Mazuchet Harbor, LLC, and you can read the full-text of the opinion by clicking on the case name.  Also, check out an article by Walter, Norcross & Judd about the case posted on JDSupra.

Posted in:     Lien Law Alerts, Mechanic Liens  /  Tags: , ,   /   Leave a comment

Michigan Lien Recovery Fund Is A Goner

Michigan Lien Recovery Fund Is A GonerEarlier this year, we wrote about pending legislation in Michigan aiming to abolish the Michigan Lien Recovery Fund (read the posts here and here).  While perhaps a really good idea…the idea was bankrupt.

Well, the legislation was passed and has now become formal law in Michigan, putting an end to the Michigan Lien Recovery Fund.  It will be interesting to see what happens to all the litigation that was pending before the fund ran out of money, and whether the state entertains the idea of this fund once its economy gets better.

For now, those are all future questions.   Stay tuned.

Interested in reading the legislation’s full text? Download PDF here.

Posted in:     Lien Law Alerts  /  Tags: ,   /   2 Comments

Changes to Lien Law Pending in New Jersey and Michigan Legislatures

Changes to Lien Law Pending in New Jersey and Michigan LegislaturesCourts around the country are constantly construing the mechanic or construction lien laws, making compliance with these statutes sometimes feel like a moving target.    A recent case out of the Washington Court of Appeals confirms this theory, which overturned a previous decision three years after-the-fact, to completely change the way liens must be signed by corporations in Washington state.

But it isn’t just the courts that change mechanic lien laws.   State legislatures are constantly proposing bills that will alter the lien statutes completely.   Currently, two such bills are pending in New Jersey and Michigan.

The Michigan Mechanic Lien Legislation

The Michigan legislation is actually getting a great deal of coverage on Twitter (yes, twitter).   See twitter posts from the legislature, and a legislator, here and here.    This particular bill’s summary provides that it “would amend the Construction Lien Act to repeal provisions concerning the Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund (HCLRF), which is essentially insolvent, and cannot meet the demand for claims from the fund.”    Read about House Bill 5830 at the Legislative Website here.

We actually wrote about the problems with the Lien Recovery Fund back in January (Michigan Lien Recovery Fund Raises White Flag).

While a good idea on paper, the Lien Recovery Fund just couldn’t make ends meet.   This legislation in Michigan is almost a foregone conclusion, as the fund itself is insolvent.   The bill is just formally closing the book on it.

The New Jersey Mechanic Lien Legislation

The legislation pending in New Jersey, in comparison to the Michigan legislation, may have a bit more of an effect on that state’s mechanic lien statutes if passed.   The bill doesn’t aim to make substantial change to the mechanic lien requirements, but many contractors and suppliers in New Jersey may be effected by the suggested changes.   Read about NJ Assembly Bill 410 at the Legislative website here.

Here is a quote of the bill’s summary:

This bill revises the “Construction Lien Law,” which was enacted in 1993, by:
(1) clarifying and adding certain defined terms, to conform to actual construction industry usage;
(2) clarifying procedures for the filing and amending of the lien claim and for the calculation, distribution and enforcement of the lien fund;
(3) providing more specific provisions for discharging a satisfied lien claim;
(4) further defining the arbitrator’s role;
(5) modifying time limits for filing and perfecting residential construction contract lien claims;
(6) specifying the application of lien claims to community association property; and
(7) addressing certain ambiguities as to mortgage priorities with respect to lien claims.

We’ll monitor these bills and keep you update.

Posted in:     Lien Law Alerts  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   2 Comments

Michigan Lien Recovery Fund Raises White Flag

Cavanaugh & Quesada, PLC’s Michigan Construction Law Update posted an troubling blog post just before the end of the year concerning the Michigan Lien Recovery Fund.

In plain language, the Michigan Lien Recovery Fund is a self-sustaining fund that steps in and pays lien claims on residential properties.   A homeowner can avoid paying for work twice by dumping claimants to the fund, and claimants can recover money owed by seeking judgment against the fund (as opposed to the homeowner).

There are some rules, restrictions and limitations, of course (such as a $75k cap per residential structure)…but in theory, the whole thing works out.

As the turbulent 2009 comes to a close, however, there is trouble with the Michigan Lien Recovery Fund:  it’s completely out of money.

Earlier in December, the Department of Engery, Labor and Economic Growth posted this update about the status of the Fund on their website:

At the present time, the Fund has become essentially insolvent, with a declining balance and an ineffective funding source to cover pending claims. The Department is seeking to repeal the Fund through legislative action.

According to the DELEG and Michigan Construction Law Update, the lack of money is fact, and not fiction:

The Fund is currently involved in over 250 pending lawsuits involving more than 350 claims against it that total more than $18 million. In 2009, Judgments against the Fund have averaged $123,800 per month. By mid-October, there was only $524,000 remaining in Fund coffers.  (from Mich. Construction Law Update)

The Fund sought a judicial remedy to the situation, but they received an adverse ruling in court.   For the time being, everyone involved is really stuck between a rock and a hard place (homeowners are exposed, claimants don’t know where to turn, the Fund is a lame duck, etc.).

This doesn’t / won’t necessarily affect a Michigan contractor or supplier’s lien and claim rights, but it certainly implicates the method of foreclosing upon claims.  Stay tuned.

Posted in:     Lien Law Alerts  /  Tags: , , ,   /   1 Comment

Mechanic’s Lien Solution

  • The most potent tool you have to manage receivables is to preserve, perfect and enforce your mechanics lien and bond claim rights. But, it's so complex? Zlien is a revolutionary enterprise offering to monitor your lien deadlines and automatically file required documents.

Contact Zlien

  • 4819 Prytania Street
    New Orleans, LA 70115
    (866) 720-5436
    email: mail@zlien.com