BloomSouth v. Boys and Girls Club, 440 Mass. 618 (2003)
The Supreme Judicial Court held that where subcontractors filed notices of contract after the general contractor abandoned the project prior to substantial completion, the subcontractors' liens, despite being filed within the time required by the lien law, had no value. The general contractor's abandonment was a willful breach of contract which terminated the general contractor's right to further payment under the contract or under equitable principles. Therefore, there was no amount due or to become due the general contractor under the original contract when the subcontractors filed their liens.National Lumber v. United Casualty, 440 Mass. 723 (2004)
A supplier that perfected a mechanic's lien for materials furnished could not recover interest and attorney's fees in enforcing the lien, despite the fact that the supplier's contract with the owner-contractor provided for recovery of these items. The Court held that the supplier's recovery was limited to the amount due for materials supplied and that the mechanic's lien statute did not allow for the recovery of attorney's fees and interest.Tremont Tower v. Macomber, 436 Mass. 677 (2002)
A contractor that voluntarily dissolves its valid mechanic's lien does not give up its right to lien the same project in the future. A dissolution merely dissolves the particular lien created by the prior filing of a notice of contract. A contractor may thereafter establish another lien by filing a new notice of contract, provided that filing is timely.Fastrack Crushing v. Abatement International, 149 N.H. 661 (2003)
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that a concrete crushing and removal subcontractor who failed to comply with notice requirements in New Hampshire's payment bond statute could not recover on the general contractor's payment bond, even though it complied with the notice requirements set out in the payment bond. The bond conditions specifically stated that where the bond was furnished to comply with a statute, any conflict between the bond and the statute would be resolved in favor of the statute. Moreover, the Court ruled claimants must strictly comply, not just substantially comply, with the payment bond statute.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.
©1992-2004 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved.