Creech v. Rufa

Summary

The court held that a mechanic’s lien is invalid unless the property owner or the owner’s agent affirmatively requested or consented to the lienor’s services. It affirmed summary judgment vacating the liens because the owner’s awareness, acquiescence, contract signature, and attendance at planning-board meetings did not establish affirmative consent, and it also affirmed denial of the defendants’ motion for renewal.

Holdings

1. A mechanics' lien on real property is invalid unless the property owner or the owner's agent requested or consented to the lienor's services through some affirmative act; the owner's awareness or acquiescence alone is insufficient.
2. Summary judgment vacating the mechanics' liens was proper because plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and defendants failed to raise a triable issue concerning any affirmative act of consent.
3. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for renewal because the certified subdivision-application document was not newly discovered evidence and defendants failed to show a justifiable excuse for not obtaining a certified copy earlier.
4. No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' mechanics' liens were valid when the property owner had not requested or affirmatively consented to defendants' services.
2. Whether defendants established triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff's motion for summary judgment vacating the liens.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to renewal based on a certified subdivision-application document obtained after the summary judgment order.
4. Whether an appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument.

Disposition

affirmed