The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-1404 CivilCLIMATE CONTROL, II, INC., Plaintiff SMITH LAND & IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-1404 MLD IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2.~day of December, 1998, after careful consideration of Preliminary Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, and the briefs and oral arguments presented in the matter, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to the PlaintiWs Complaint are DENIED. BY THE COURT, , / ~ ? /7/ I. ~/esley Oler, ~_r.4/, J. ~ U Andrew C. Sheely, Esq. 127 Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff Loudon L. Campbell, Esq. Charles M. Suhr, Esq. Calkins & Campbell 223 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 James E. Ellison, Esq. Rhoads & Sinon, LLP P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Attorneys for Defendant :rc CLIMATE CONTROL, II, INC., Plaintiff SMITH LAND & IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-1404 MLD IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J., December 23, 1998. Presently before the court are preliminary objections of Defendant Smith Land & Improvement Corporation to the complaint of Plaintiff Climate Control II, Inc. Defendant has raised an issue pertaining to the propriety of Plaintiff's filing of a complaint based on a mechanics' lien after the mechanics' lien has been discharged when such discharge is attributable to the payment of funds, by a party in interest, into the court's registry sufficient to pay the alleged obligation upon which the mechanics' lien is based. For the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's preliminary objections will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The allegations of the Plaintiff's complaint can be summarized as follows. Plaintiff is Climate Control II, Inc. (Climate Control), a Pennsylvania corporation doing business at 4487 York Road, New Oxford, Adams County, Pennsylvania. Defendant is Smith Land & Improvement Corporation (Smith Land), a Delaware corporation with a business address of 2001 State Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Smith Land is the owner of the property commonly referred to as the West Shore Plaza. In May, 1997, Smith Land contracted with RE Grant Company, Inc. (RE Grant), as a general contractor, to make improvements to the West Shore Plaza property. On July 14, 1997, RE Grant entered into an agreement with Plaintiff Climate Control, as subcontractor, to furnish and install the heating and air-conditioning systems in the CVS Pharmacy of the West Shore Plaza at a contract price of $41,225.00. Subsequently, RE Grant requested that Climate Control perform additional work on the project, at an additional cost of $3,140.00. By November 26, 1997, Climate Control had performed all of the work contracted tbr by RE Grant. RE Grant paid $37,102.50 to Climate Control. Unable to resolve a dispute over the remaining $7,262.50 due Climate Control under the contract, Climate Control filed a mechanics' lien claim at 98-1404 MLD in the amount of $7,262.50 against Smith Land, owner of the improved property. On March 19, 1998, RE Grant petitioned the court to discharge the lien on the condition of RE Grant's payment of $7,262.59 into Court.~ On March 20, 1998, the writer of this opinion granted the petition to discharge the lien, and RE Grant deposited the $7,262.59 into court. On August 4, 1998, Climate Control filed a complaint pursuant to the ~ The discrepancy between the $7,262.50 claimed in the mechanics' lien claim and the $7,262.59 deposited with the court is unexplained in the record. 2 Mechanics' Lien Law seeking the unpaid portion of the contract price. On August 25, 1998, Defendant Smith Land filed the preliminary objections currently before the court. The preliminary objections challenge the propriety of a mechanics' lien complaint in the absence of an extant mechanics' lien attaching the improved property. DISCUSSION A mechanics' lien claim is a creation of statute and as such is in derogation of the common law? "A mechanics' lien is a claim created by law for the purpose of securing a priority of payment of the price or value of work performed and materials furnished in erecting or repairing a building or other structure .... -3 While the act is intended to protect those who furnish labor and materials, the mechanics' lien does not address the rights of parties vis-a-vis each other.4 Under the Mechanics' Lien Law, a distinction is made between a "claim" and an "action.''5 A "claim" is defined as "a mechanics' lien claim which has been filed." 6 An "action" is defined as "an action to obtain judgment upon a claim.''7 2 See Delmont Mech. Servs. v. Kenver Corp., 450 Pa. Super. 666, 677 A.2d 1241 (1996). 3 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 105:1 (1997). 4 See Matternas v. Stehman, 434 Pa. Super. 255,642 A.2d 1120 (1994). ~ See Pa. R.C.P. 1651. 6 Pa. R.C.P. 1651(a). 7 Pa. R.C.P. 1651(b). 3 Upon the filing of a mechanics' lien claim and the attachment of a mechanics' lien upon the subject property, the owner of the property, or a party in interest, upon petition, may have the lien discharged whenever a sum equal to the amount of the claim is deposited with the court.8 The filing of such security is not an admission of liability nor is it an acquiescence in the validity of the adverse party's claim. See Yankey v. Buckman, 18 Pa. Super. 378 (1901). The validity of the underlying claim is left to be determined through the procedures established by the Mechanics' Lien Law. These procedures include the filing of a complaint or the filing of an agreement for an amicable action.9 In the case subjudice, the Defendant has argued that, because security for the claim has been deposited with the court, Plaintiff is now prohibited from commencing an action to establish the Defendant's liability in order to eventually gain possession of the funds deposited as security. As support for this proposition, Defendant claims that Plaintiff can only file a complaint under the Mechanics' Lien Law in order "'to obtain judgment upon a claim filed' against an owner." Defendant's brief at 7. Defendant then argues that because the depositing of security with the court serves to discharge the lien on the property, there is no existing claim upon which the mechanics' lien complaint can be grounded. Defendant's 8 See Act of August 24, 1963, P.L. 1175, §510(a), 49 P.S. §1510(a). The relevant portion of the statute states that "[a]ny claim filed [under the Mechanics' Lien Law] shall, upon petition of the owner or any party in interest, be discharged as a lien against the property whenever a sum equal to the amount of the claim shall have been deposited with the court in said proceedings for application to the payment of the amount finally determined to be due." Id. (emphasis added). 9 See Pa. R.C.P. 1653. 4 brief at 7. The critical error in this argument is the confusion of the lien on the property with the claim filed by the Plaintiff. By depositing adequate security with the court, the lien is discharged, thereby eradicating a cloud on the title to the subject property. The claim, however, lives on with substituted collateral - in this case, the funds deposited with the court in the amount of $7,262.59. As the claim, in contradistinction to the lien, has not been extinguished, there is no procedural bar to the filing of the mechanics' lien complaint in this matter and, accordingly, Defendant's preliminary objections to the Complaint cannot be sustained. The following order will therefore be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's arguments presented in the matter, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff's Complaint are DENIED. BY THE COURT, 1998, after careful consideration of Complaint, and the briefs and oral Andrew C. Sheely, Esq. 127 Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Loudon L. Campbell, Esq. Charles M. Suhr, Esq. Calkins & Campbell 223 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 James E. Ellison, Esq. Rhoads & Sinon, LLP P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Attorneys for Defendant irc