Monthly Archives: June 2012

UPDATED: Lien Law Revisions Bill Cruises Through State Senate, Followed by “Hidden Lien” Legislation

Most recent update: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:22 p.m.Both the lien law revisions bill and the “hidden lien” legislation sought by the title insurance industry flew through the N.C. Senate yesterday with flying colors.

The lien law revisions bill (House Bill 1052), which among other things would (1) provide “double payment” protection for general contractors under North Carolina’s public payment bond statute and (2) permit subs and suppliers to serve a Notice of Claim of Lien Upon Funds even after a party above them in the contractual chain files for bankruptcy protection, passed unanimously 49-0, with one Senator not voting.

The bill was amended prior to the vote to remove treble damages liability for misrepresentations made in lien waivers.  I was listening to the Senate’s deliberations on the amendment, and Senators Brunstetter, Clodfelter, Tillman and Nesbitt all spoke about the dangers of introducing potential unfair and deceptive trade practices liability into a construction project’s payment cycle.   The amendment was unanimously approved by the House on Thursday, June 28.  The revised bill, as amended, can be found here.

The hidden lien legislation (Senate Bill 42), which among other things would require potential lien claimants to preserve their lien rights by providing a “Hi, I’m here” pre-notice to the project owner’s designated lien agent on residential and commercial projects, also passed unanimously 49-0, but not without some heartburn.  In particular, Senator Tommy Tucker of Waxhaw spoke about how the legislation was only before the General Assembly “under a veiled threat” by the title insurance industry, thereby representing a “you’d better!” bill that would leave subcontractors “holding the bag again.”  He expressed his support for the bill since the homebuilding industry supported it, but expressed his desire that the General Assembly re-visit the legislation early in the 2013 session to improve it before its April 1, 2013 effective date.

The version of SB 42 passed by the Senate contained several revisions to the version passed in the House on June 21.  In the intervening week, a group of construction industry stakeholders — yours truly included, in the interest of full disclosure — worked to propose several modifications that would remove some of the rough edges from the House-passed bill.  Those proposed modifications included the following:

  • The requirement of pre-notice will not apply where the improvements in question are to be made to an existing single-family residential dwelling unit that is used by the owner as a residence.
  • The failure to provide lien agent information to a supplier not expected to perform on-site labor will not result in triple damages exposure under North Carolina’s unfair and deceptive trade practices statute.
  • Higher tiered contractors will no longer be able to cut off the lien rights of lower tiered contractors through lien waivers once the lower tiered contractor (1) files pre-notice to the lien agent and (2) serves a notice of claim of lien upon funds up the entire contractual chain and upon the lien agent (under existing law, a higher tiered contractor’s ability to waive the rights of lower tier contractors is only shut off when the lower tiered contractor files a lien enforcement action in court).
  • Where a lien agent is not designated prior to the provision of design services by an architect or engineer, the design professional will be deemed to have met the requirement of pre-notice upon the owner’s designation of the lien agent.

These modifications and others are contained in a conference report that was adopted by both the House and Senate yesterday that you can find here.  Legislative action on the hidden lien bill is complete, subject to the bill potentially being “tweaked” early in the next legislative session.

Both bills are on their way to Governor Perdue for her approval, which is expected before the end of the month.

Many thanks to Representative Sarah Stevens of Mount Airy for reaching out to me yesterday with news of these developments, and for all of her efforts in shepherding these important bills to the finish line.

1 Comment

Filed under Lien Law, Payment Bonds, State law, policy & news, Surety Law

“Who Are You?” To Preserve Lien Rights Against Owners, Get the Right Answer to that Question!

Image courtesy Sam Killermann / samuelkillermann.com. Lyrics from “Who Are You” by P. Townshend (c) 1978.

I’m psyched to present another guest blogger this week: Lewis & Roberts construction & surety law associate extraordinaire, Jessica Bowers.  It’s been my distinct pleasure to work with Jessica since she joined L&R in October 2010.  Jess has represented owners, developers, GC’s and subs, and her practice has seen an increasing emphasis on serving the needs of surety companies.  A member of the State bar since 2005, Jess was a recipient of the bar’s Pro Bono Public Service Award that year.  

If you’re like me, you might find yourself softly singing the catchy chorus from the Who’s “Who Are You” as you consider the North Carolina Court of Appeals’ June 5, 2012 decision in Young & McQueen Grading Company, Inc. v. Mar-Comm & Assocs., Inc. et al.

The case involved a good deal of confusion regarding the correct identity of the owner of a construction project, confusion that complicated the contractor’s assertion of its mechanic’s lien rights against the owner’s property.

Rest easy, the contractor ended up prevailing and holding on to its lien rights.  But it sure wasn’t easy!  The decision reminds us how critical it is at the beginning of a project to determine the correct identity of the owner of the improvement by obtaining an accurate answer to one simple question:

Who are you?

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Feature story, Lien Law, NC case law

BREAKING: Lien Bills Approved by House

Dave Simpson of Carolinas AGC informs me that HB 1052, the study commission’s lien law revision bill, as well as SB 42, the most recent version of the “hidden lien” legislation, were approved this afternoon by the House of Representatives of the North Carolina General Assembly.  Neither bill was amended prior to passage.

Senate action is still required before the bills reach Governor Purdue’s desk; I’ll keep you posted on developments.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lien Law, Payment Bonds, State law, policy & news, Surety Law

Hidden Lien Legislation Appears Primed for Approval in General Assembly

The train is on the track, and there’s no slowing it down.That was the impression left on construction industry stakeholders after House Judiciary Subcommittee B approved Senate Bill 42 unanimously yesterday.

Although the bill was initially re-referred to the Finance Committee, that referral was subsequently withdrawn, and a quick scan of today’s legislative calendar suggests the bill will be considered by the entire House at 11:00 a.m. this morning (the House calendar is here; see bottom of page 2).

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Lien Law, State law, policy & news

Great Judicial Quote About Major Construction Projects

Gotta share this quote I recently read from a 1981 decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals that colorfully captures the complexities and chaos of a major construction project:

[E]xcept in the middle of a battlefield, nowhere must men coordinate the movement of other men and all materials in the midst of such chaos and with such limited certainty of present facts and future occurrences as in a huge construction project …  Even the most painstaking planning frequently turns out to be mere conjecture, and accommodation to changes must necessarily be of the rough, quick and ad hoc sort, analogous to ever-changing commands on the battlefield.

Blake Const. Co., Inc. v. C. J. Coakley Co., Inc., 431 A.2d 569, 675 (D.C. 1981).  So construction is like a battlefield, and war is hell.  Might I suggest having a good lawyer fighting on your side?!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Latest on Lien and Bond Bills Pending in the General Assembly

Image from Wikipedia Commons

Monday is upon is, the beginning of what is likely to be the penultimate week of the General Assembly’s 2012 short session.

As my regular readers know, I’ve been tracking two key pieces of construction-related legislation: the lien law revision bill recommended by a legislative study commission, and the bill advanced by the title insurance industry to address the “hidden lien problem.”

This post provides an update on where those two bills stand, and also reports on a third construction-related bill that hit my radar last week.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Lien Law, Local law, policy & news, Payment Bonds, Payment Bonds, State law, policy & news, Surety Law

Title Insurers Seek Profound, Immediate Changes to N.C. Mechanic’s Lien Law

My May 23 post about proposed revisions to North Carolina’s lien laws mentioned that protection against “hidden liens” had been omitted from earlier versions of the bill, due to a concern that the issue required additional study prior to legislative action.

The title insurance industry, however, has other ideas.

In recent weeks, title insurers have ratcheted up the pressure for the issue to be addressed immediately, prior to the General Assembly’s adjournment of its “short session” at the end of this month.   The legislation they are pursuing would make profound changes to the manner in which all potential lien claimants — architects, engineers, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers included — would need to preserve their lien rights, before a claim of lien is ever filed.

This post provides background on the so-called “hidden lien problem,” summarizes the title insurers’ current legislative efforts, and identifies potential problems with their draft legislation.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Feature story, Lien Law, State law, policy & news

No End In Sight: Managing Latent Defect Exposure in a Post-Jacobs Engineering World

Virginia construction attorney Chris Hill

Last week, I reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to hear the Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. v. State of Minnesota case, which arises from a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court allowing that state’s legislature to retroactively revive long-expired latent defect liability.

This week, I provide a summary of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision and prognosticate about its consequences over at Chris Hill’s excellent blog, “Construction Law Musings.”  You can read my guest post on Chris’s site by clicking here.

Many thanks to Chris, a fellow Duke ’94 alum, for giving me the opportunity to guest blog at his place.  I’ll be back here with original content early next week.  Lots going on with mechanic’s lien law & policy to share…

Leave a comment

Filed under Construction Defects, Federal case law, State law, policy & news

What Contractors Should Know About the Surety Bond Underwriting Process

Danielle Rodabaugh of SuretyBonds.com

I’m thrilled to welcome my first guest blogger, Danielle Rodabaugh, to N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News.  Danielle is chief editor at SuretyBonds.com, a nationwide surety provider that issues construction bonds to contractors every day.  As a part of the company’s educational outreach program, Danielle writes articles to help construction professionals understand the intricacies of surety bonds and the underwriting process.  You can keep up with Danielle on Google+

Whether you’re new to the construction industry or have decades of experience under your belt, you probably have some questions about surety bond acquisition and what goes into the underwriting process.  Before we go much further, though, I’d like to review the basics of how surety bonds work and why they’re required.

Surety bonds ensure project completion.

When surety bonds are used on projects, they’re known as “contract bonds” or “construction bonds.”  Project owners require them to ensure construction professionals work according to terms laid out in contracts.

There are a number of different contract bond types.  Some of the most common ones are license bonds, bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds.  No matter what kind of surety bond you need, it will function as a legally enforceable contract that binds together three parties:

  1. The individual contractor or contracting firm that buys the bond is the principal.
  2. The project owner, which is typically a state agency, that requires the contractor to be bonded is the obligee.
  3. The insurance company that issues the bond bond is the surety.

If a contractor fails to fulfill the bond’s terms, then the obligee can make a claim on the bond’s sum to gain reparation for any damages or financial losses.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Payment Bonds, Performance Bonds, Surety Law