|
Maryland’s mechanic’s lien law primarily refers to
“buildings” as the objects of liens for work done to improve
real property. In addition to buildings, a mechanic’s lien will
“extend to the land covered by the building and to as much
other land, immediately adjacent and belonging in like manner
to the owner of the building, as may be necessary for the
ordinary and useful purposes of the building.” When a contractor
seeks to encumber with a lien a small building on a
large lot, determining the boundaries of the land “necessary
for the ordinary and useful purposes of the building” presents
a challenge. In Arfaa v. Martino, 404 Md. 364 (2008),
however, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that a contractor’s
failure to describe the precise boundaries of the
land encumbered by a lien will not destroy the contractor’s
lien rights. Moreover, the court noted that those erecting
new buildings have the first opportunity to designate which
land is necessary for the building’s purposes.
In Arfaa, a subcontractor (“subcontractor”) filed for a mechanic’s
lien after performing repair and renovation work on
one of three buildings situated on a seventy-three acre property.
In filing for the lien, the subcontractor did not make
any specific claims about the amount of land necessary for
the purposes of the building, but merely described the
boundaries as including all seventy-three acres, thus implicitly
seeking a lien on the entire property. In addition to making
standard challenges to the sufficiency of the petition, the
owner argued that the subcontractor’s failure to designate
the boundaries of the land necessary for use of the building
rendered the mechanic’s lien petition invalid.
The court disagreed, holding that proving the boundaries of
the land necessary for the use of a building is not a necessary
element of a mechanic’s lien claim. The court stated
that the mechanic’s lien law “does not evidence any legislative
intent to place on subcontractor an additional burden, to
obtain, under some circumstances, a designation of the adjacent
land that is appurtenant to the building on which the
subcontractor worked. It certainly does not include an application
for designation of boundaries as one of the items required
to be set forth” when beginning mechanic’s lien proceedings.
Because the Maryland legislature did not explicitly
require that the lien claimant describe “the boundaries of
the land appurtenant to the subject building,” the court declared
that it would not read that requirement into the law.
|
The court’s ruling that the lien claimant need not describe the
boundaries of the land necessary for the use of the building
does not mean that successful lien claimants will automatically
receive a lien on all the land upon which the building is
situated. Rather, after hearing evidence, the trial court will
determine the extent to which a lien on a building applies to
surrounding land. In fact, the court noted that if a land owner
is proactive, it can “define, in writing, the boundaries of the
land appurtenant to the building before the commencement of
construction, and then file the boundaries for record with the
clerk of the circuit court for the county.” After making this
designation, it is binding on all future lien claimants, whether
by mortgage, judgment, or otherwise. A land owner, therefore,
may wish to designate the boundaries of the land appurtenant
to the building and to record these boundaries with the
clerk of the appropriate circuit court before commencing construction
of a building. In doing so, the owner can restrict the
land against which all future mechanic’s liens against the
building will apply.
|
