Mechanic's Liens and Stop Notices

On December 13, 2019, I will be giving a presentation on construction-related topics arising from commercial lease improvements.  The presentation is part of a two-day seminar on Advanced Commercial Real Estate Leases, co-chaired by my colleague, John A. Fandel, and hosted by Law Seminars International.  Topic will include insurance coverage, mechanic’s liens, scheduling, indemnity, safety,

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

Interpreting Utah’s former mechanic’s lien statute, the Utah Court of Appeals has held that a contractor that contracted with and provided construction services for a developer could not maintain a valid mechanic’s lien on property owned by a third-party landowner. In Reeve & Associates, Inc. v. Tanner, 2015 UT App 166 (2015), the owners of

In a case of first impression in Idaho, the Supreme Court in American Bank v. Wadsworth Golf Construction Co. of Southwest, No. 39415 (Idaho Aug. 16, 2013) (slip op.), determined that priority of lien filings on a property remain subject to a lien priority analysis even after a statutory lien release bond is filed

A California appellate court recently held that the value of an original construction contract is admissible as evidence to limit a contractor’s right to recovery under Civil Code section 3123(a), even by a property buyer that was not a party to the construction contract. Appel v. Los Angeles Superior Court (CA No. B244590, Mar. 11, 2013). The net effect in this instance could be a reduction of the value of the contractor’s lien claim by at least $13.5 million. 

The underlying facts reflect an all-too-common scenario of a failed project. Here, a single-purpose entity developed a large condominium project, originally inked with a GMP of $65 million. Increases through construction by approved change orders moved the GMP to $81 million. Disputes arose, and the contractor thereafter claimed an additional $13.5 million above the $81 million GMP. Unfortunately here, several units of the project had been purchased by this point, and the buyers were then subject with the developer to the mechanic’s lien of the contractor. Prior to trial, the developer entity and its alter ego affiliates negotiated a pre-trial settlement with the contractor that included in part a restatement of the final contract GMP to $95.5 million, purportedly settling the issue of the “value” of the construction contract for the contractor to continue pursuing its lien claim against the unit buyers. During pre-trial motions, the trial court commented on the impact of the negotiated settlement and “expressed doubt as to whether the unit owners should be precluded from challenging the value of the GMP contract set forth in the settlement agreement:


COURT: Are you saying [the unit owners] don’t have a right to attack the . . . value of the contract which was agreed after the fact as part of the settlement?

[CONTRACTOR]: We don’t believe they have a right to attack that.

COURT: Well, that is just boggling to my mind. [¶] . . . [¶] [I]t totally boggles my mind, because you could agree to anything, anything [in the settlement].”


The trial court also stated that it saw “‘no purpose’ for the settling parties’ decision to raise the value of the GMP other than to hinder the unit owners’ lien foreclosure defense.” Although the trial court took the matter under submission, it later felt constrained to rely on an existing decision cited by neither party and ruled against the unit buyers, precluding them from challenging the post-lien GMP value set during the settlement between the developer and contractor.

Following the market crash in 2008-09, the $2.8 billion Fontainebleau development in Las Vegas was halted with 70 percent of the construction completed. Naturally, numerous mechanic’s liens were filed by contractors, subcontractors, professionals and suppliers ("claimants"). In the bankruptcy proceeding, the lenders asserted novel and potentially legally destabilizing theories against the claimants’ rights: a.) the

The Third District Court of Appeal in Cal Sierra Construction, Inc. v. Comerica Bank (Cal. App., May 31, 2012, No. C060707) 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 641 (Cal Sierra), determined that lenders were precluded from enforcing property owner rights though a motion to release the mechanic’s lien and stop notice.  The court distinguished the

Now that the holiday frenzy has wound down, many have overlooked the necessity of updating their mechanic’s lien procedures in California. Effective January 1, 2011, prevailing California law imposes new requirements and notice procedures for effective lien actions on mechanic’s lien claimants. These changes immediately affect the preparation, service, and recordation of mechanic’s lien claims. California Civil Code