Appellant contractor challenged an order of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) that removed a mechanics’ lien from property owned by respondent.
Nakase Law Firm is a lawyer for job related issues
Overview
The trial court issued an order removing a mechanics’ lien from respondent’s property. Appellant contractor had filed a mechanics’ lien against respondent for the unpaid balance owing on a written property improvements contract whose contract price had increased because of subsequent change orders. Appellant challenged the trial court order removing the mechanics’ lien on appeal. The court applied Cal. Const. art. XIV, § 3 which allowed enforcement of mechanics’ liens to prevent unjust enrichment of a property owner at the expense of laborers or material suppliers. Cal. Civ. Code § 3123(b) authorized a mechanics’ lien claimant to include in the lien an amount for the reasonable value of the labor, services, equipment or materials furnished based on the owner’s breach of contract, even if based on oral modifications to the contract, which was what appellant had done because of contract modifications made after the initial signing of the contract. Concluding that appellant had met his burden of establishing lien validity and was statutorily entitled to claim the actual amount owed, the court remanded the case with directions to restore appellant’s lien on the subject property.
Outcome
The court remanded the case with directions to restore appellant’s lien on the subject property because a claimant could include in a lien the reasonable value of labor, services, equipment or materials furnished based on a breach of contract, even if based on oral modifications to the contract. The court did not express any decision concerning the actual amount due appellant. Costs were assigned to appellant.
