A builder or contractor improving property can take a mechanic’s lien for non-payment for his work, as our Pittsburgh lawyers have written. Only, numerous technical defenses exist. For example, the property owner can strike off the encumbrance to title, if not property served with the action. Enter the parties in BELFOR PROPERTY RESTORATION v. RAVENWOOD MANOR, LLC, 2023 P.A. Super 240 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
Service of the Claim … on a Security Guard?
In Belfor Property Restoration, above, the Plaintiff, Belfor, had essentially performed a new construction for a property owner. There, the Defendant hired Belfor to demolish a building and build a new home in its place. Claiming non-payment for its work, Belfor brought a mechanic’s lien action against the Defendant-property owner. Defendant filed objections to the lien, claiming that Belfor had merely served the action on a mere “security guard” but not any person “in charge” of the premises, as the rules require.
The trial court concluded that the person in charge must be “the person in charge of the business, not simply the place of business,” such as a security guard. With that, the trial court dismissed the action.
But that was not the end.
Superior Court of PA Reviews Law in PA
Belfor appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. There, Superior Court opined:
We begin with a review of the applicable law. We will reverse a trial court’s decision to strike a mechanic’s lien claim based upon improper service where there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Accord Regency Investments, Inc. v. Inlander Ltd., 855 A.2d 75, 77 (Pa.Super. 2004) (stating standard of review of orders sustaining preliminary objections for improper service of process).
As our Supreme Court has observed, “a mechanics’ lien is an extraordinary remedy that provides the contractor with a priority lien on property, an expeditious and advantageous remedy.” Terra Firma Builders, LLC v. King, 249 A.3d 976, 983 (Pa. 2021) (cleaned up). “Accordingly, a contractor seeking the benefit of the lien must judiciously adhere to the requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Law in order to secure a valid and enforceable lien.” Id.
All that said, the Superior Court also noted the basic facts:
“[The Security guard] was the person in charge of [Defendant’s premises] for the time being when service was effectuated. It observes that the return of service indicated that [the security guard] was the only person at the property when Deputy O’Brian served him there at 11:10 on a Tuesday morning;
The appellate court further noted that the place of service was a “regular place of business” for the Defendant. As such, the court concluded:
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in striking Belfor’s mechanics’ lien claim for improper service. Therefore, we reverse the order granting [the property owner’s] motion to strike Belfor’s mechanic’s lien claim.
Let’s Get Started
In conclusion, to this Pittsburgh lawyer handling the above claims and defenses, it came as no surprise that the trial court had dismissed the action, only to be reversed. The are of law is fraught with landmine technicalities that can go either way. Contact a Pittsburgh attorney at our firm to schedule a consultation to learn more.
412.342.0992
