Originally published to the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce on August 11, 2026
Ending a construction contract can trigger significant legal and practical consequences for owners and contractors. This article examines the risks that can arise when project participants decide to terminate or separate, including the differences between mutual separation, termination for cause, and termination
Because construction liens can affect other interests in real property, both public notice and actual notice to certain parties with recorded interests are essential to a fair lien system. In Oregon, timely recording a claim of lien with the county recorder provides the required public notice and is a prerequisite to a valid lien. Oregon’s
Washington’s construction lien statute, RCW 60.04, balances the interests of persons performing work to improve real property with the interests of property owners in avoiding the necessity of paying for the same work twice. An unpaid contractor can assert a lien against property it has improved, but the owner has a right to notice that the work is taking place. On commercial projects, a contractor that is not under contract with the owner or prime contractor (a “lower-tier” subcontractor) usually must give a pre-claim notice to the owner to preserve its lien right. A contractor supplying only labor is expressly exempt from this requirement, though there has been some question regarding whether a lower-tier subcontractor providing both labor and materials is subject to the notice requirement.
In its March 11, 2021 opinion, Division Three of the Washington Court of Appeals considered whether the 90-day period to record a claim of lien is extended by a contractor performing work after substantial completion to correct nonconforming work – usually referred to as “warranty work.” In the case of Brashear Electric, Inc. v. Norcal Properties, LLC, the Court strictly construed the statutory term “repairing” to exclude the contractor’s correction of its own work and rejected the notion that warranty work extended the 90-day timeframe to file a lien claim.
Norcal Properties, LLC (“Norcal”) and Blue Bridge Properties, LLC (“Blue”) own adjacent properties. Norcal and Blue separately contracted with Vandervert Construction (“Vandervert”) to construct a building on each property. The prime agreements’ substantive provisions were identical. Vandervert subcontracted with Brashear Electric, Inc. (“Brashear”) to work on both projects.
Under the prime agreements, Vandervert promised to correct nonconforming work up to a year after substantial completion. Vandervert’s subcontracts with Brashear required Brashear to assume the prime agreements’ warranty provisions.
Oregon law requires a lien claimant to perfect its lien by recording it within 75 days of ceasing to “provide labor, rent equipment, or furnish materials or 75 days after completion of construction, whichever is earlier.” An unpaid contractor must record its lien 75 days after completion of its major contract work and removal of
Some economic indicators point to a recession in the not-too-distant future, and parties involved in construction projects should take steps to avoid (or perfect) liens and protect their rights if there is a downturn. The complexities of Oregon’s lien laws are best negotiated with the assistance of experienced counsel. In my inaugural article for the
Practical Law, a division of Thomson Reuters and an affiliate of Westlaw, now offers another lien law resource for Washington practitioners. With contributions from Stoel Rives LLP’s Seattle-based construction attorneys Karl Oles, Bart Reed, and Loni Hinton, this new lien resource includes a “flowchart” of important concepts and timelines associated with preserving, perfecting, enforcing, and
Recently, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals issued an opinion providing guidance regarding the scope of Washington’s frivolous lien statute and the subtle intricacies of preparing and filing a construction lien against a condominium project. This article provides a high-level overview of how to file a lien against a condominium project in Washington
On February 11, 2019, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Woodley v. Style Corp. d/b/a Servpro of Shoreline/Woodinville, No. 77352-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2019). The case highlights the care that should be exercised in filing a lien claim for services furnished to improve a condominium and the consequences that may befall a claimant under Washington’s frivolous lien claim statute, RCW 60.04.081.
The case arose from water intrusion at a unit in the Bellevue Park condominium complex. After discovery of the condition, the condominium’s property management company contacted Servpro and executed a work authorization for the contractor to clean up the water and perform restoration work. Servpro was not paid for its work and filed a claim of lien. The lien named the association as the indebted person, recited that it applied to the 20 specific units and a common storage area of the condominium, and named each owner of the 20 units but did not allocate a specific portion of the total debt to each unit.
Practical Law, a Thomson Reuters company and division of West Publishing Corporation that produces online legal resources for attorneys, is pleased to partner with Stoel Rives LLP to present its Washington Construction Lien Practice Note and Workflow Checklist.
The resources, now published and available through Practical Law’s online services, afford access to valuable content about