Construction Web guide: infrastructure, buildings, engineering, architecture
Web directory of federal, state, local governments; courts; legislatures; Congress; trade groups; businesses; colleges; libraries; publications; international agencies affecting construction, engineering, architecture, infrastructure Web directory of resources on licensing, registration, building codes, new projects, bidding, financing, environment, specifications, e-commerce, laws, regulations, insurance, bonds, jobs, safety, best practices, engineering, architecture, training Web guide to dictionaries; encyclopedias; reference materials; business and international travel resources; people finders; telephone numbers; Web addresses; postal codes; currency, metric converters; time zones; calendars; travel; news
More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure
Site Search Site Map Registration About CWL ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us

Federal Preemption
Developer's Claim for Indemnity Against Architect for ADA and FHA Violations Rejected

Not Like Private Deals
City Contract May Not Be Modified Orally or by Course of Dealing, Court Holds

Business Risk Exclusion
CGL Insurer that Refused to Defend, Pay Claim Penalized, Held Liable

Little Known Hazard
Plumbers Burned as a Result of Natural Gas 'Odor Fade,' but Damage Award Reversed

Could Apply Broadly
Design Professional Denied Protection of Contract's Liability Limit by Florida Court

Part Of Lung Removed
Contractor Escapes Liability When Plaintiff Cannot Tie Infectious Fungus to Jobsite Dirt Stockpile

Disgorgement Order
Court Allows Discharge in Bankruptcy of Penalty for Violation of Contractor Licensing Law

Obligations Discharged
When Surety Takes Over Project, Owner Cannot Object to Replacement Contractor, Court Holds

Default Judgment
Notice, Accident, Own Work Defenses Rejected in Claims by General Contractor Against Plumber's Insurer

Previous Issues

Construction Industry News

Mechanic's Lien Executed by Attorney Upheld, but New Jersey Supreme Court Bars Practice in Future


June 2, 2003


Back to Industry Newsletters
 

ConstructionWebLinks.com

A subcontractor on a building renovation project claimed it was asked by the general contractor to perform extra work on the project. After the subcontractor completed its work, it billed the general contractor for the nearly $1.5 million in work performed pursuant to the subcontract, plus $212,518 for the claimed extra work. The general contractor paid the amount due under the subcontract but refused to pay for the claimed extra work.

The subcontractor then sought the advice of a lawyer about filing a lien for the extra work it performed. The lawyer told the subcontractor that it could execute a power-of-attorney vesting in the attorney the authority to sign and prosecute its lien claim. The lawyer reassured the subcontractor that other corporate clients had executed such powers-of-attorney and that a court had found this practice to be satisfactory. Relying on the lawyer's advice, the sole owner and president of the subcontractor executed a power-of-attorney authorizing the lawyer to act on its behalf in preparing, filing and prosecuting liens. The lawyer signed and filed a $212,518 construction lien claim on behalf of the subcontractor.

Under New Jersey law, a lien claim filed on behalf of a corporation must be signed, acknowledged and verified by a duly authorized officer. N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-6. The purpose of the requirement is to protect corporations and their shareholders from being exposed to liability under the Construction Lien Law. Liability arises when a lien is forfeited or is found to be without basis. The party that filed the lien is liable for all court costs and reasonable legal expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the defendants in defending or discharging the lien.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint to enforce the lien and forfeiture of the lien, on grounds it was untimely, willfully overstated and improperly executed. The trial court granted defendants' summary judgment motion on grounds it was improperly executed. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's ruling, and the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the subcontractor's petition for certification.

The Supreme Court held that the power-of-attorney, which was intended by the subcontractor to confer on its attorney the authority to sign and prosecute a lien on its behalf, complied with the signature requirement of the Lien Law. D.D.B. Interior Contracting, Inc. v. Trends Urban Renewal Association, Ltd., ___ A.2d ___, 2003 WL 21061239 (N.J. 2003).

The court reasoned that its ruling did not contravene the purpose of the corporate signature requirement because the only person at risk of harm under the Lien Law (the sole owner and officer of the subcontractor) was the party who had executed the power-of-attorney. Moreover, the court noted that: (i) the Lien Law does not define the term "duly authorized officer"; (ii) the Legislature had not addressed whether or not a power-of-attorney may vest an individual with the authority of a "duly authorized officer"; (iii) the subcontractor's sole owner and president had relied on its lawyer's representations that the power-of-attorney was effective under the Lien Law; and (iv) the defendants had not been prejudiced because all other requirements for filing a lien claim had been met.

Even so, the court recognized that a corporation or its shareholders may be harmed or other interested parties may be prejudiced when a person who is not a corporate officer signs a lien claim on behalf of the corporation. Consequently, the court issued a warning that in future cases, powers-of-attorney will be deemed insufficient to vest an individual with the authority of a "duly authorized officer" for the purpose of prosecuting a lien claim on behalf of a corporation. A lawyer may do so only if he or she is in fact a duly authorized corporate officer.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether it or arbitrators would decide the overstatement and timeliness issues.


If you would like to receive legal reports and updates more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form. If you would like to subscribe to our RSS feeds or learn more about RSS, click here.


Send This Report to a Colleague

Tools to Share, Organize, Comment on Information


©2003 ConstructionWebLinks, Inc.

More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure

© ConstructionWebLinks, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Legal notices, and terms and conditions.

Site Search Site Map Registration About CWL ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us