I was wondering what are the laws on putting a lien on a property.
The situation is, A sub did a Stucco repair and redash ing for me. Quoted me the prices verbally and I agreed. After the job I got an invoice. I made a partial payment (1/2 the bill) but wanted a better job. The sub returned to fix were all the patching showed thru. Only hours after the repair (a redashing) we had rain and now I’m stuck with worse results than before. An additional repair will only remove all the texture from the stucco it’s already too thick.
The Stucco guy is now treating a lien for non-payment. He sent a certified letter stating his right to do so. Isn’t this supposed to be presented before the work begins? Still again I have signed no contract.
How do I proceed?
Replies
The only rule of liens is that they a very different from state to state.
This is Minneapolis Minnesota
If you were in Michigan, that contractor couldn't file a lien because all contracts have to be in writing. Without a written contract, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
blue
As mentioned, laws vary considerably from state to state. You really need to consult with a local lawyer, who practices in this area. You might get a referral from a contractors' association.
He shouldn't have done that right before a rain. He'll have to do it again, probably for free. You might be partly responsible for the rain problem if you knew when he was going out to do it and didn't stop him.
A lien does not cause an automatic problem for the property owner. Here in WA they expire in less than a year if suit is not brought, and in most cases a lien is nothing without a lawsuit filed to 'perfect' it. He'd be insane to sue over a stucco repair. What are we talking, a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars?? It would cost him more than that just to get a lawyer to file suit. It'll never happen.
Your lack of knowledge of the local process is putting you at a disadvantage. You should know exactly what the lien laws are in your state.
The other posters saying lien law is different in each state are correct. I'm not sure I could think of another area where the differences are so great and common. That said, in PA, if a lien is filed, the property owner can post bond to release the lien and then resolve the matter in court -- probably more $$ than the repair. My advice is to sit down with the guy and resolve the problem in a way you both hate, but you both can live with. You'll both save some $$ and agravation.
Mike Hennessy
Pittsburgh, PA
In addition to the lein laws of your state, you need to know the basics of tort laws concerning verbal contracts, payments, performans and such for your state.
Maybe RJW will chime in with some explanation of torts for you.
About the only thing I recall about ours is that the courts assume you do not give away money to someone. That is you are purchasing goods or services for your $$, and that the completion of the verbal contract is by mutual agreement and payment in full. Without that mutual agreement the verbal contract may not be complete and final payment may be withheld.
Or something like that. Torts also vary from state to state based on common and reasonable practices there that have withstood the test of time with the courts.
Thats why I have my attorneys number on file.
Dave
Here in Arizona, the mechanics' and materialmen's lien laws state that all mechanics and materialmen shall have a lien for labor performed or materials furnished whether at the instance of the property owner or his agent and that all contractors and subcontractors are agents of the property owner. It is stated that the property owner is liable for all contracts awarded to mechanics and materialmen by his agent. A big problem we face is fraud on the part of unscrupulous persons. The problem goes something like this. The property owner acting as his own contractor awards a contract to XYZ Company to perform all labor in the capacity of a mechanic and to furnish all materials in the capacity of a materialman for the construction of a building. XYZ then goes to various third party mechanics and materialmen claiming that they are the contractor (owner's agent) and order labor and materials even though they know this to be false. After these third parties perform labor and furnish materials the property owner denies hiring an agent to act as contractor since he was his own contractor. The property owner then claims that he thought all those various mechanics and materialmen were part of XYZ and that how they worked things out in there own company was their problem.XYZ admits that they were not really hired as contractor but they were faced with breach of contract if the labor and materials were not furnished. So they pretended to be the contractor to get other parties to do the work and furnish the materials. XYZ then submits their bill for payment claiming they did what they said they would do and the persons who actually did the work and furnished the materials are left without recourse against the property owner because the property owner claims no agents were employed.
Here we go again...
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
lol