Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 23STCP00131 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 23STCP00131, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00131 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR RELEASE OF MECHANIC’S LIEN

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner 2119 Beachwood, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION FOR RELEASE OF MECHANIC’S LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on the Petition to Expunge Respondent’s Mechanic’s Lien and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed by Petitioner 2119 Beachwood, LLC, is CONTINUED TO JUNE 26, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the errors discussed herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NOT OK

[X] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) OK

[X] Correct Manner of Service (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) NOT OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of May 18, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 18, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On January 17, 2023, Petitioner 2119 Beachwood, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Expunge Respondent’s Mechanic’s Lien and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Petition”) against Respondent Grandmaison Construction, Inc. (“Respondent”). The Petition seeks an order releasing property commonly known as 120 N. Glenroy Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90049 ( “Subject Property”) from a mechanic’s lien filed on January 7, 2022, by Respondent. (Noudel Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

Petitioner filed a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was served by email with the Petition and supporting documents on January 14, 2023, at customerservice@grandmaisongroup.com. (Pet. pp. 23-24.)

Respondent did not file a response.

II. Legal Standard

After a mechanic’s lien has been recorded, “[t]he owner of property or the owner of any interest in property subject to a claim of lien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien if the claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time provided in Section 8460.” (Civ. Code, § 8480(a).) A claimant must commence an action to enforce a lien within 90 days of recording the lien, otherwise, “the claim of lien expires and is unenforceable.” (Civ. Code, § 8460(a).) However, the 90-day time limit to commence an action to enforce a lien does not apply if there was an agreement to extend credit and a notice of that fact was recorded within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien or more than 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien but before a purchaser or encumbrancer for value and in good faith acquires rights in the property. (Civ. Code, § 8460(b).)

III. Discussion

A. Service Requirements

“The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition and a notice of hearing on the claimant at least 15 days before the hearing. Service shall be made in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the claimant as provided in Section 8108.” (Civ. Code § 8486(b).) Civil Code § 8108 provides addresses at which a respondent must be served, depending on the title of the person to be served. For example, a claimant should be served at the address on the “claimant’s contract, preliminary notice, claim of lien, stop payment notice, or claim against a payment bond, or on the records of the Contractors' State License Board.” (Civ. Code § 8108(e).) The petitioner bears the burden of proving that he or she complied with service and date for hearing requirements. (Civ. Code. § 8488(a).)

Here, Petitioner has filed proof of service indicating that Respondent was served by email with the Petition and supporting documents on January 14, 2023, at customerservice@grandmaisongroup.com. (Pet. pp. 23-24.)

First, the Court finds that Petitioner did not comply with the service requirements of Civil Code § 8486(b). Second, there is no proof that Respondent has been served with the Notice of Hearing.

B. Petition Requirements

Civil Code § 8484 requires that the petition for release order be verified by the petitioner and allege the following:

(a) The date of recordation of the claim of lien. A certified copy of the claim of lien shall be attached to the petition.

(b) The county in which the claim of lien is recorded.

(d) The legal description of the property subject to the claim of lien.

(e) Whether an extension of credit has been granted under Section 8460, if so to what date, and that the time for commencement of an action to enforce the lien has expired.

(f) That the owner has given the claimant notice under Section 8482 demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the lien and that the claimant is unable or unwilling to do so or cannot with reasonable diligence be found.

(g) Whether an action to enforce the lien is pending.

(h) Whether the owner of the property or interest in the property has filed for relief in bankruptcy or there is another restraint that prevents the claimant from commencing an action to enforce the lien.

A property owner may not petition for a release order until he or she gives the claimant notice demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of lien claim at least ten days before filing the petition. (Civ. Code § 8482.)

On March 15 and November 15, 2022, Petitioner sent Respondent written correspondence requesting that Respondent remove the lien on Subject Property. (Noudel Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. B.) On December 16, 2022, a Demand for Release of Claim of Lien was sent to Respondent. (Noudel Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D.) In December, Petitioner’s counsel had a phone conversation with Alicia Grandmaison, who refused to remove the lien from the Subject Property. (Ibid. at ¶ 8.) Petitioner contends that “Respondent failed and refused to release such lien” and believes that “the failure to release the lien is intentional with malice” in order to cause Petitioner to incur litigation costs and expenses. (Ibid. at ¶ 9.) Petitioner adds that “[n]o action was commenced within 90 days” of filing the lien and thus, it is “expired and is unenforceable.” (Pet. p. 4.) Moreover, Petitioner has not granted an extension of credit to Respondent. (Ibid.)

On January 17, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Petition with a copy of the Claim of Mechanic’s Line, Document No. 20220025820, filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office on January 7, 2022. (Noudel Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The Court notes that the Petition is not verified and the copy of the Mechanic’s Lien is not certified. Moreover, the Petition does not set forth the legal description of the Subject Property. Finally, Petitioner does not indicate whether it has filed for bankruptcy, or whether any other restraint exists preventing Respondent from filing an action to enforce the lien.

Given the numerous deficiencies identified above, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition and orders Petitioner to correct these deficiencies. The Court will address Petitioner’s request for attorney’s and costs at the next scheduled hearing.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.