Recent Court Decisions
Ng Brothers v.
Cranney,
436 Mass. 638 (2002)
The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that a contractor could enforce a mechanic's lien where no certificate of substantial completion was filed in the Registry of Deeds. The Court ruled that, under the new mechanic's lien statute, the notice of substantial completion, which is supposed to be filed jointly by the Owner and the general contractor, is not essential to lien eligibility. Under the statute, the notice of substantial completion is only one of three possible ways for a contractor to establish the timely filing of its notice of contract, which is essential to a valid lien.
Tremont Tower v. Macomber,
436 Mass. 677 (2002)
In a second case involving the mechanic's lien statute, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a contractor, which provides a dissolution of its lien to obtain a partial payment, may create a later lien by filing a new notice of contract. Providing a voluntary dissolution of an existing lien, the Court concluded, does not surrender any future right to lien the same project.
Northeast v. Town of Wareham,
54 Mass. App. Ct. 564 (2002)
The Appeals Court ruled a contractor was entitled to recover lost profits against the Town of Wareham where the Town wrongly rejected the contractor's bid. The Town had awarded the contract to Northeast, but rescinded that award when another bidder threatened to sue. The Court held the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude the Town had acted in bad faith, which is the essential element in obtaining lost profit damage from a public authority.
Albrecht v. Clifford,
436 Mass. 706 (2002)
The Supreme Judicial Court has created a new warranty of habitability which is to be implied in every contract for the sale of new homes. This new warranty is independent of the agreement of sale and cannot be waived or disclaimed. It allows a new home buyer to sue the builder for hidden or concealed defects that appear after purchase, and which affect the safety or livability of the home. Suit must be commenced within three years after the defect was or should have been discovered, but in no event more than six years after occupancy.
This
newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the
construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or
to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal
counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the
use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material
advertising.
©1992-2002 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved