Description of Property Sufficient for Identification
The purpose of this requirement is to give notice to interested parties that a lien has been claimed on a particular property. When the Notice of Lien is filed, it is indexed according to the property description. Therefore, it is extremely important that the property description is correct.
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this issue apparently for the first time in 1992 in the case of For-Shor Co. v. Early, 828 P.2d 1080 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). In For-Shor the notice of lien had given an address and a lot number, but had failed to provide an actual legal description. The court ruled that unless an address and/or lot number was not sufficient to “inform . . . interested persons that a lien exist[ed] on identifiable property and the complaining party has not been misled by the notice, . . . “ then the legal description would be adequate for the Mechanic’s Lien’s statutory requirement. Id.
Generally, the description of property required by a mechanic’s lien statute should be sufficiently definite to enable a person familiar with the locality to identify the property with reasonable certainty to the exclusion of others. Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Due, 212 Kan.658, 512 P.2d 525 (1973).
Where the building or other improvement is located on a portion of a large tract of land, the lien claimant should identify that portion of the property upon which the improvements were made. The same is true where there are a number of buildings upon the liened property. The building or buildings against which the lien is claimed should be identified in the Notice of Lien as a part of the property description.
In addition, even if a property description is incorrect, the lien may not be invalid. Where the description is erroneous but the property can still be identified, the description may still be held to be adequate. For example, in James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen, 21 Ariz. App. 217, 517 P.2d 1110 (1973), the Notice of Lien identified the property as lot 608 of Moon Valley Subdivision and also gave the correct address. The property was actually lot 608 of the Moon Valley II Subdivision, which was adjacent to the Moon Valley Subdivision with the lots numbered consecutively. The court held that the description was adequate to identify the property for mechanic’s lien purposes.
The key is whether the property description is sufficient for identification. The best way to ensure the sufficiency of a property description is to make it accurate and thorough.
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this issue apparently for the first time in 1992 in the case of For-Shor Co. v. Early, 828 P.2d 1080 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). In For-Shor the notice of lien had given an address and a lot number, but had failed to provide an actual legal description. The court ruled that unless an address and/or lot number was not sufficient to “inform . . . interested persons that a lien exist[ed] on identifiable property and the complaining party has not been misled by the notice, . . . “ then the legal description would be adequate for the Mechanic’s Lien’s statutory requirement. Id.
Generally, the description of property required by a mechanic’s lien statute should be sufficiently definite to enable a person familiar with the locality to identify the property with reasonable certainty to the exclusion of others. Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Due, 212 Kan.658, 512 P.2d 525 (1973).
Where the building or other improvement is located on a portion of a large tract of land, the lien claimant should identify that portion of the property upon which the improvements were made. The same is true where there are a number of buildings upon the liened property. The building or buildings against which the lien is claimed should be identified in the Notice of Lien as a part of the property description.
In addition, even if a property description is incorrect, the lien may not be invalid. Where the description is erroneous but the property can still be identified, the description may still be held to be adequate. For example, in James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen, 21 Ariz. App. 217, 517 P.2d 1110 (1973), the Notice of Lien identified the property as lot 608 of Moon Valley Subdivision and also gave the correct address. The property was actually lot 608 of the Moon Valley II Subdivision, which was adjacent to the Moon Valley Subdivision with the lots numbered consecutively. The court held that the description was adequate to identify the property for mechanic’s lien purposes.
The key is whether the property description is sufficient for identification. The best way to ensure the sufficiency of a property description is to make it accurate and thorough.
posted by Randy B. Birch @ 6:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home