• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of some of the recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. To check for updates in your area of interest, simply click on the Practice Area to your left.

Mechanic’s Liens

Mozingo & Wallace Architects, LLP v. Patricia Grand, 379 S.C. 478, 666 S.E.2d 267 (Ct. App. 2008).
Opinion No. 4426, decided July 15, 2008.

An architect entered into an agreement with a hotel owner to perform schematic design work for planned renovations to the hotel. Over the next several months, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the timeline for the renovations. The dispute culminated with the architect terminating his services and demanding full payment for his services rendered up to that point. The hotel owner refused to pay, so the architect filed a mechanic’s lien and subsequently brought this action to foreclose the lien. The trial court found in favor of the architect and awarded the amount requested in the notice of mechanic’s lien, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the hotel owner argued that the architect had not complied with its obligations under the scope of the parties’ agreement, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the architect either fulfilled its responsibilities under the agreement or was prevented from doing so by the hotel owner. The court also upheld the trial court’s determination that the architect’s award of attorneys’ fees was statutorily limited to the amount set forth in the notice of mechanic’s lien.

Skiba v. Gessner, 374 S.C. 208, 648 S.E.2d 605 (2007).
Opinion No. 26363, decided July 23, 2007.

The plaintiff sought to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien after the defendant failed to pay him for lot clearing work. The trial court originally dismissed the case on the ground that a contractor’s license was required to do the work, and thus pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-370 he could not enforce the mechanic’s lien. Upon reconsideration, the trial court found that the work was merely landscaping, not preparation for construction, and therefore a license was not required. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that even if the work was landscaping and therefore a license was not required, the plaintiff was still barred from enforcing the mechanic’s lien because S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-10(a) provides that in order to enforce a mechanic’s lien, a person must perform or furnish labor or materials that are actually used in the erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure upon real estate. Because landscaping is not the “erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure,” no mechanic’s lien could attach to the defendant’s property.

Cohen’s Drywall Co. Inc. v. Sea Spray Homes, LLC, 374 S.C. 195, 648 S.E.2d 598 (2007).
Opinion No. 26360, decided July 23, 2007.

The plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien against the defendants’ property, but the defendants subsequently posted a cash bond to release the property from the lien. The plaintiff filed suit to enforce the bond within the six month time period required by S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-120, naming the property as the subject of the enforcement action. When the plaintiff learned that a bond had been posted, it amended its complaint to name the bond the subject of the enforcement action. The amendment occurred outside the six month time period and the defendants moved to dismiss on that basis. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the mechanic’s lien statute did not require the amendment of the complaint and allowed the plaintiff’s suit to go forward because it was originally filed well within the required time period.

Taylor, Cotton & Ridley, Inc. v. Okatie Hotel Group, LLC, 372 S.C. 89, 641 S.E.2d 459 (Ct. App. 2007). Opinion No. 4194, decided January 8, 2007.

The central issue in this case was whether S.C. Code Ann. §§ 29-5-20, 29-5-40, and 29-5-60 require a trial court to credit a project owner for settlements reached with some subcontractors in determining the amount owned a separate subcontractor. The project owner settled with all but one subcontractor for 66.6% of their lien amounts and subsequently sought to limit any amount paid to the remaining subcontractor to this same percentage. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the remaining subcontractor was not bound by the prorated limit in the settlement because the mechanic’s lien statute does not contain a provision requiring a subcontractor to settle or be forced to receive a pro rata judgment as long as the aggregate amount of the liens does not exceed the amount due by the project owner on the general contract.

 

Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.