Home>Levelset Community>Legal Help>Can he now file a lien?

Can he now file a lien?

Plumber did some rough in work on my house in 2019. Did not return. Finished the job myself, meaning I installed my own toilets and sinks. Now he claims I owe him a staggering amount. Out of line. He has piled up a fee from another job on my (finally) an invoice. I requested invoices along the way so I could pay him then too. Nothing. No contract. Now he threatens a lien. What do I do? Thank you.

1 reply

Oct 16, 2021

Under Minnesota law, a lien "burns off" and is no longer enforceable after 1-year. Minn. Stat. sec. 514.12, Subd. 3 provides: "One-year limitation. No lien shall be enforced in any case unless the holder thereof shall assert the same, either by filing a complaint or answer with the court administrator, within one year after the date of the last item of the claim as set forth in the recorded lien statement; and, no person shall be bound by any judgment in such action unless made a party thereto within the year; and, as to a bona fide purchaser, mortgagee, or encumbrancer without notice, the absence from the record of a notice of lis pendens of an action after the expiration of the year in which the lien could be so asserted shall be conclusive evidence that the lien may no longer be enforced and, in the case of registered land, the registrar of titles shall refrain from carrying forward to new certificates of title the memorials of lien statements when no such notice of lis pendens has been registered within the period." The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. JAG Investments, Inc., 634 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 2001), explained: "The one-year limitation of the lien statutes is no ordinary statute of limitations; it puts a limit to the life and duration of the lien. [(Citation omitted.)] The statutes require that not only filing a complaint, but also making the defendant-landowner a party to the suit – accomplished by serving the defendant-landowner with the summons – must be done within one year. Minn. Stat. § 514.12, subd. 3. * * * If these requirements are not met, the lien and any cause of action flowing therefrom cease to exist at the end of the year." “Revival of the lien is clearly disallowed when de minimus operations are performed for the sole purpose of extended the time for the lien and the work is otherwise substantially completed.” Kahle v. McClary, 96 N.W.2d 243, 246 (Minn. 1959). But see, Poured Concrete Found., Inc. v. Andron, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 506, 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (acid wash done 2 years after masonry project was otherwise completed served to extend lien period where acid wash was customary process, not nominal or insignificant, and there was no evidence that subcontractor intended to extend lien), rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 1995). Additionally even if there is a valid lien, overstating the amount of the lien may result in the entire lien claim being invalidated. Minn. Stat. sec. 514.74 provides, in part: "In no case shall a lien exist for a greater amount than the sum claimed in the lien statement, nor for any amount, if it be made to appear that the claimant has knowingly demanded in the statement more than is justly due." However, “‘[t]o deprive the [lien] claimant of [the] right to a lien under [the] statute, there must be a showing of fraud, bad faith, or an intentional demand for an amount in excess of that due.’” Witcher Const. Co. v. Estes II Ltd. P’ship, 465 N.W.2d 404, 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) quoting Delyea v. Turner, 118 N.W.2d 436, 440 (Minn. 1962). Thus, when a lienor intentionally overstates the amount due, the lienor is precluded from seeking foreclosure. Delyea v. Turner, 118 N.W.2d 436, 440 (Minn. 1962).

1 person found this helpful

Helpful