|
In the District of Columbia, much like in other jurisdictions, a
mechanic’s lien is a remedy created entirely by statute; that is,
absent some provision in law which expressly grants a contractor
the right to file a mechanic’s lien, no mechanic’s lien may
attach upon the property of another. Since the D.C. mechanic’s
lien is a “creature of statute,” the various requirements for filing
a mechanic’s lien are construed narrowly. Among these
several requirements, a contractor recording a notice of mechanic’s
lien in the District of Columbia must correctly identify
the owner(s) of the property, the name(s) of the party against
whom the lien is claimed, and provide a legal description of the
property. In the case of McNair Builders, Inc. v. 1629 16th
Street, LLC, 698 A.2d 505 (D.C. 2009), the court addressed the
importance of correctly naming the owner and describing the
property. Great care is required in preparing notices of mechanic’s
lien so that when properly recorded, they name the
correct parties and describe the correct property; otherwise, a
contractor faces the likelihood of its lien being rendered invalid.
In McNair Builders, McNair, a general contractor, performed
certain construction work on a building located in the District
of Columbia pursuant to a contract with 1629 16th Street, LLC
(“1629”), the owner. During the project, a dispute arose between
the parties concerning the work performed by McNair
and payments made by 1629. On January 16, 2006, McNair
filed a notice of mechanic’s lien against 1629 (whom McNair
|
believed to be the owner of the property). McNair’s notice
described the property by reference to certain square and lot
numbers.
Unbeknownst to McNair, in April of 2005, 1629 had established
a condominium ownership regime for the property,
effectively changing the record owner of the property. The
plan subdivided and re-numbered certain lots on which
McNair had provided labor and materials. In April of 2006,
McNair filed its suit to enforce mechanic’s lien and for breach
of contract. Shortly afterward, 1629 filed a motion for summary
judgment on the basis that McNair’s notice failed to
name the correct owners or adequately describe the property.
The trial court, in granting 1629’s motion, set aside McNair’s
notice as invalid.
On appeal, McNair challenged the trial court’s ruling, arguing
that the trial court erred in expunging the notice, even though
McNair had named the wrong owner. Specifically, McNair
relied on the fact that 1629 retained ownership over a portion
of the condominium’s common area and, therefore, argued
that the notice had properly informed the parties of the pending
mechanic’s lien.
The D.C. Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. It held that
neither the named party (1629) nor the lots described in the
continued on page 2
|
