Terra Firma Builders v. King, W., Aplts. ( 2021 )

[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
TERRA FIRMA BUILDERS, LLC, : No. 15 MAP 2020
:
Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the
: Superior Court at No. 2593 EDA
: 2018 dated July 19, 2019,
v. : Reconsideration Denied September
: 19, 2019, Reversing the Order of the
: Delaware County Court of Common
WILLIAM KING A/K/A BILLY M. KING AND : Pleas, Civil Division, at No. CV-
MELANIE L. KING A/K/A MELANIE L. : 2015-001536 dated August 21,
FRANTZ, : 2018, entered August 22, 2018
:
Appellants : ARGUED: October 21, 2020
DISSENTING OPINION
JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: April 29, 2021
In this appeal we are asked to interpret the portions of the Mechanics’ Lien Law
that govern a property owner’s challenge to the validity of a mechanics’ lien. Performing
its analysis, the Majority focuses on Sections 502 and 505 of the Mechanics’ Lien Law
and discerns an intent on the part of the General Assembly to provide property owners
with a virtually timeless ability to counter the “powerful statutory tool” that is a mechanics’
lien. See Maj. Op. at 16-17. In so doing, the Majority does not grapple with the entirety
of the Mechanics’ Lien Law or the specific issue before us. As a result, in my view, the
Majority countenances an absurd result that is unsupported by the statute.
The operative facts are undisputed. In 2013, Terra Firma Builders, LLC (“Terra
Firma”) filed a mechanics’ lien against the Kings in an amount exceeding $130,000. In
connection with its mechanics’ lien, Terra Firma filed the required affidavit of service in
conformance with Section 502 of the Mechanics’ Lien Law.1 Terra Firma subsequently
discontinued the mechanics’ lien claim. Within a week, it filed another mechanics’ lien.
This lien was identical to the first but assigned a different docket number. Terra Firma
did not file the requisite affidavit of service in connection with this mechanics’ lien claim.
In 2015, Terra Firma filed a complaint to enforce the lien and an action alleging
breach of contract. The Kings did not file preliminary objections challenging Terra Firma’s
failure to file the affidavit of service, but filed an answer and asserted a counterclaim for
breach of contract. In 2017, the trial court consolidated all claims and the matter
proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court found for the Kings, awarding them a portion
of their claimed monetary damages. Both parties filed post-trial motions. While the
motions were pending, the Kings filed a petition to strike the mechanics’ lien, arguing that
the lien was invalid because Terra Firma failed to file the requisite affidavit of service.
The trial court granted post-trial motions but subsequently granted the petition to strike
the lien. The Superior Court reversed, finding that although there is no explicit limitation
on the time for a property owner to contest a lien in the Mechanics’ Lien Law, such a
challenge must be made during the enforcement action on the lien or be deemed to have
been waived. Terra Firma Builders, LLC v. King, 215 A.3d 1002, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2019),
reargument denied (Sept. 19, 2019), appeal granted, 226 A.3d 971 (Pa. 2020).
This Court granted the Kings’ petition for allowance of appeal to address the
following issue:
Is a property owner who seeks to challenge the perfection of
a mechanics’ lien required to file preliminary objections before
or during the enforcement proceeding of the lien?
1 Section 502 is set forth in full infra.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 2
Terra Firma Builders, LLC v. King, 226 A.3d 971 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam). Although this
issue asks whether a challenge to the perfection of mechanics’ lien must be raised prior
to or during the enforcement action, the Majority does not answer this question. The
Majority shifts the focus of the issue before us, as it does not consider whether the
challenge must be raised within the enforcement action but only whether the Kings’ raised
their objection in an untimely manner. See Majority Op. at 11(stating the issue presented
in this appeal as “whether the Kings … were required to assert their objection to the lien
much earlier than they did.”). From this altered premise focusing on timing instead of
procedural posture, the Majority veers off course in its analysis.
The question before the Court is one of statutory interpretation, over which our
standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. SEDA-COG Joint Rail
Auth. v. Carload Express, Inc., 238 A.3d 1225, 1232 (Pa. 2020). As we undertake this
analysis, we are mindful that our objective is to discern the intent of our General
Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). When determining legislative intent, individual statutory
provisions must be construed with reference to the entire statute of which they are a part.
Fletcher v. Pa. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 985 A.2d 678, 684 (Pa. 2009); Rossi v.
Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 64, 66 (Pa. 2004). As recognized by the Majority, mechanics’
liens are remedies created wholly by statute in degradation of the common law. See
Denlinger, Inc. v. Agresta, 714 A.2d 1048, 1052 (Pa. Super. 1998). As such, courts
employ a strict construction of the terms of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Id.; see also
Artsmith Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Updegraff, 868 A.2d 495, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005).
Mechanics’ liens are “extraordinary remed[ies]” that “provide[] an expeditious
method to obtain a lien at very little cost to the claimant[.]” Phila. Const. Servs., LLC v.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 3
Domb, 903 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2006). The filing of a claim for a lien against
property by a contractor or subcontractor creates a lien claim. See 49 P.S. § 1201(6).
Article V of the Mechanics’ Lien Law sets forth the procedure for the filing and perfection
of a lien claim. Section 502(a) provides as follows:
(a) Perfection of Lien. To perfect a lien, every claimant must:
(1) file a claim with the prothonotary as provided by this
act within six (6) months after the completion of his
work; and
(2) serve written notice of such filing upon the owner
within one (1) month after filing, giving the court, term
and number and date of filing of the claim. An affidavit
of service of notice, or the acceptance of service, shall
be filed within twenty (20) days after service setting
forth the date and manner of service. Failure to serve
such notice or to file the affidavit or acceptance of
service within the times specified shall be sufficient
ground for striking off the claim.
49 P.S. § 1502(a)(1)-(2). Section 505 establishes a procedure for a property owner to
challenge a mechanics’ lien claim, which is the focus of this appeal. It provides that
[a]ny party may preliminarily object to a claim upon a showing
of exemption or immunity of the property from lien, or for lack
of conformity with this act. The court shall determine all
preliminary objections. If an issue of fact is raised in such
objections, the court may take evidence by deposition or
otherwise. If the filing of an amended claim is allowed, the
court shall fix the time within which it shall be filed. Failure to
file an objection preliminarily shall not constitute a waiver of
the right to raise the same as a defense in subsequent
proceedings.
49 P.S. § 1505. In Section 505, the General Assembly set forth specific grounds for a
property owner to challenge the validity of a lien claim and established that a property
owner may raise those challenges in two ways: by preliminary objection to the lien claim
or by defense in “subsequent proceedings.”
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 4
The Majority ends its statutory analysis with these two provisions and concludes
that because there is no explicit timeframe in which to contest a lien within Section 505,
a property owner may raise such a challenge at any time. Majority Op. at 14-15. Yet,
this analysis ignores the fact that Section 505 provides that challenges may be raised as
a defense “in subsequent proceedings.” To conclude that there is no timeframe within
Section 505 is to ignore this portion of the statute. It is axiomatic that “every statute shall
be construed, if possible, to give effect to all of its provisions.” Hearst Television, Inc. v.
Norris, 54 A.3d 23, 31 (Pa. 2012); see also Daly v. Hemphill, 191 A.2d 835, 842 (Pa.
1963) (“The Legislature cannot be deemed to intend that its language be superfluous and
without import. Every word, sentence or provision in a statute must be given effect in
construction of the statute.”). Accordingly, the analysis is not complete without
considering what the General Assembly intended by its use of the term “subsequent
proceedings” in Section 505.
Aside from the initiating procedure for filing and perfecting a lien as found in
Section 502, the only “subsequent proceedings” provided for in the Mechanics’ Lien Law
are found in Article VII Section 701, governing the methodology for obtaining a judgment
on the lien claim and execution thereon.2 The balance of the provisions in the Mechanics’
2 § 1701 Procedure to obtain judgment
(a) Practice and Procedure. The practice and procedure to obtain judgment upon a claim
filed shall be governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by the Supreme
Court.
(b) Time for Commencing Action. An action to obtain judgment upon a claim filed shall be
commenced within two (2) years from the date of filing unless the time be extended in
writing by the owner.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 5
Lien Law do not prescribe or authorize proceedings related to the lien claim. Article I
contains the short title of “Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963” for this legislation and Article II
sets forth definitions for certain terms therein. 49 P.S. §§ 1101, 1201. Article III (“Right
to Lien”) establishes the rights of contractors and subcontractors to file a lien, as well as
circumstances in which a lien is not permitted. See 49 P.S. §§ 1301, 1303. It further
contains a presumption regarding the use of materials, provides for the claimant to obtain
a lien when work is incomplete, to consolidate or apportion multiple claims, allows a court
to limit the boundaries of the liened property and prohibits the removal of an improvement
subject to a lien claim. See 49 P.S. §§ 1302 -1307. Article IV (“Waiver of Lien; Effect of
Filing”) addresses the scope of a contractor’s or subcontractor’s ability to waive their
(c) Venue; Property in More Than One County. Where a claim has been filed in more than
one county as provided by section 502(b),1 proceedings to obtain judgment upon all the
claims may be commenced in any of the counties and the judgment shall be res
adjudicata as to the merits of the claims properly filed in the other counties. The judgment
may be transferred to such other county by filing of record a certified copy of the docket
entries in the action and a certification of the judgment and amount, if any. The
prothonotary of the court to which the judgment has been transferred shall forthwith index
it upon the judgment index and enter it upon the mechanics' lien docket.
(d) Limitation on Time of Obtaining Judgment. A verdict must be recovered or judgment
entered within five (5) years from the date of filing of the claim. Final judgment must be
entered on a verdict within five (5) years. If a claim is not prosecuted to verdict or
judgment, as provided above, the claim shall be wholly lost: Provided, however, That in
either case, if a complaint has been or shall be filed in the cause and if the cause has
been or shall be at issue, all time theretofore or thereafter consumed in the presentation
and disposition of all motions and petitions of defendants, substituted defendants and
intervenors in the cause, and in any appeal or appeals from any order in the cause, from
the date of perfection of such appeal to the date of return of the certiorari from the
appellate court to the court of common pleas, shall be excluded in the computation of the
five (5) year period herein provided.
(e) Defense to Action on Claim. A setoff arising from the same transaction or occurrence
from which the claim arose may be pleaded but may not be made the basis of a
counterclaim.
49 P.S. § 1701.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 6
capacity to file a lien claim against a property. Article VI (“Duties and Remedies of Owner
and Contractor Upon Notice of Intention to File or on Filing of Claim by Subcontractor”)
sets forth the duties and rights to remedies for property owners and contractors when a
lien claim is filed by a subcontractor, but it does not establish proceedings beyond those
provided for in Section 505 to challenge the lien or Section 701 to obtain judgment on the
lien. Article VIII is limited to a severability provision and establishing the effective date of
the Mechanics’ Lien Law. See 49 P.S. §§ 1801, 1802. Article IX repeals the prior laws
governing mechanics’ liens. See 49 P.S. §§ 1901, 1902.
Considering the Mechanics’ Lien Law as a whole, I conclude that the only
proceedings subsequent to the filing of the lien claim contemplated by the General
Assembly are Section 701 enforcement proceedings. The law regarding mechanics’ liens
is subject to strict construction, Agresta, 714 A.2d at 1052, and so there can be no other
proceedings beyond those provided for in the law itself. Accordingly, the terms of Section
701 are central to the question before us. See Johnson v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg,
LLP, 235 A.3d 1092, 1097–98 (Pa. 2020) (“[C]ourts generally should construe statutes as
a whole, keeping in mind that the context provided by surrounding statutory provisions
often provides vital insights into the legislature's intent.”); Thompson v. Thompson, 223
A.3d 1272, 1277 (Pa. 2020) (“While we may not ignore unambiguous language under the
pretext of pursuing the spirit of the statute, we must always read the words of a statute in
context and not in isolation, and give meaning to every provision.”).
Section 701 contains five subsections relating to the practice and procedure for
obtaining judgment on a lien claim. It sets forth limits on the time for commencing such
an action and well as limits on the time for obtaining a judgment in such an action. See
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 7
49 P.S. §§ 1701(b),(d). One provision governs venue when the subject property lies in
more than one county, and another restricts the assertion of a setoff as a defense only.
See 49 P.S. §§ 1701(c),(e). Most pertinent to the present case is Section 701(a), which
provides that proceedings to obtain a judgment on a lien claim are governed by the Rules
of Civil Procedure. 49 P.S. § 1701(a). This Court has promulgated rules of civil procedure
specific to actions upon mechanics’ liens, see Pa.R.C.P. 1651-1661, and these rules
mandate that “the procedure to obtain judgment on a claim shall be in accordance with
the rules relating to a civil action.” Pa.R.C.P. 1651(b).3 Our long-established rules
3 The Majority dismisses the applicability of Rule 1651 because the note thereto reiterates
that the procedure for filing a lien claim is governed by the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Majority
Op. at 15. This appeal is not concerned with the filing of a lien claim or any action by the
claimant. This appeal is focused wholly on matters following the filing of a lien claim;
specifically, whether a property owner must raise objections and defenses within the
confines of the enforcement proceeding. Once in the realm of an enforcement
proceeding, the Rules of Civil Procedure apply. 49 P.S. § 1701(a).
This misplaced focus is evident throughout the Majority’s reasoning and resolution.
The Majority ceases its analysis after determining that Terra Firma did not perfect its lien,
reasoning that this defect could not be cured and that no judgment may be entered on an
invalid lien. Majority Op. at 14 (citing Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Blocked Iron Corp., 147
A.2d 332 (Pa. 1959)). This case does little to address the issue before us. Although Day
& Zimmerman involved a petition to strike a mechanics’ lien claim for failure to file the
required affidavit of service, the petition was filed prior to an enforcement action and the
timeliness of the petition to strike was not at issue. See Day & Zimmerman, 147 A.2d at
333. In Day & Zimmerman, the issue was trained on whether a claimant could cure the
failure to file the affidavit of service within the period designated for such filing in the
Mechanics’ Lien Law. The claimant asserted equitable considerations and argued that
the court had discretion in its decision whether the strike the claim. This Court rejected
those arguments, finding that because the filing of an affidavit of service within one month
after the filing of the lien claim was mandatory, there was no valid lien upon which the
claim could subsist. Id. at 334-35. There is no proclamation, nor suggestion in Day &
Zimmerman, that once an enforcement action is filed, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not
apply or that a property owner cannot waive the underlying defect. It simply was not an
issue.
The Majority also cites, without discussion, a number of other cases for the
proposition that a claimant cannot obtain a judgment on an imperfect lien. Majority Op.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 8
governing civil actions require that defenses and objections must be raised during the
course of the action on the pain of waiver. Pa.R.C.P. 1032(a)(providing that, with certain
exceptions not applicable here, the failure of a party to raise a defense by preliminary
objection, answer or reply results in the waiver thereof). There is no exemption within the
rules promulgated for actions upon mechanics’ liens from this well-established directive
regarding waiver of defenses. To the contrary, by mandating that enforcement actions
proceed in conformance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, it is assured that defenses are
waived if not properly asserted.
Reading Section 505 in context of the Mechanics’ Lien Law as a whole, I glean the
following. Because the General Assembly did not restrict the filing of preliminary
objections to a lien claim explicitly or by reference to other procedural rules, a property
owner may preliminary object to a lien claim at any point until an enforcement action is
filed. Once an enforcement action is filed, a property owner may raise challenges to the
validity of the lien in the enforcement action (the only subsequent proceedings
contemplated by the Mechanics’ Lien Law), but in conformance with the applicable Rules
of Civil Procedure. By incorporating the Rules of Civil Procedure into the enforcement
action, it is evident that the ability to challenge the lien claim is not limitless, but restricted
to the confines of those rules.
In providing that the lien’s validity may be challenged in the enforcement action,
the General Assembly recognized that the issue of the lien’s validity is inextricably linked
at 15-16. I reiterate that we are not concerned in this appeal with whether Terra Firma
perfected its lien such that it could obtain judgment thereon. We are concerned with
whether the Mechanics’ Lien Law places restrictions on a property owner’s ability to raise
certain defects as a defense to a lien claim.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 9
to, and inseparable from, the enforcement action because no judgment may be entered
on an invalid lien. See. e.g., Rosenberg v. Cupersmith, 87 A. 570, 571 (Pa. 1913). Due
to this inseparability, once enforcement proceedings are initiated, the defenses that may
be raised to a lien claim pursuant to Section 505 merge with the enforcement action,
requiring that all defenses relative to either to be raised at that time. As the enforcement
action is subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure, once an enforcement action is filed, the
Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to the filing of preliminary objections and raising of
defenses control. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028, 1030. Our Rules provide that such objections
and defenses may be waived, for “a party may waive its right to present its contentions in
court … when a litigant fails to follow established and approved methods” to do so.
Strickler v. United Elevator Co., 391 A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super. 1978).
The Majority apparently agrees that Section 701 provides the only other
proceedings identified in the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Majority Op. at 4 n.7. But the Majority
still does not grapple with the terms “preliminarily” and “subsequent proceedings” as used
in Section 505. The only reading of Section 505 that gives meaning to these terms is that
objections can be raised preliminarily to an enforcement action but that failure to raise
objections at that time does not waive the right to raise the objections in a Section 701
proceeding. Because Section 701 incorporates the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to
raise the objections as a defense results in waiver. This reading is in keeping with the
entirety of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. While the Majority focuses on the perfection of the
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 10
lien, it ignores the fact that a perfected lien is unenforceable unless it is reduced to
judgment in a Section 701 proceeding. See 49 P.S. § 1701(d).4
The Majority resists a finding of waiver by purporting to prioritize the more specific
terms of the Mechanics’ Lien Law over the general terms of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Majority Op. at 15.5 As discussed supra, the Majority’s consideration of the terms of
the Mechanics’ Lien Law is incomplete, as it overlooks Section 701. I agree with the
Majority insofar as it recognizes that Section 505 governs the procedure to contest the
lien claim and that Section 505 contains no explicit temporal limitation in which a party
must act. Id. at 14, 16. Yet, the Majority disregards the final phrase of Section 505, which
4 Limitation on Time of Obtaining Judgment.-
A verdict must be recovered or judgment entered within five
(5) years from the date of filing of the claim. Final judgment
must be entered on a verdict within five (5) years. If a claim
is not prosecuted to verdict or judgment, as provided
above, the claim shall be wholly lost: Provided, however,
That in either case, if a complaint has been or shall be filed in
the cause and if the cause has been or shall be at issue, all
time theretofore or thereafter consumed in the presentation
and disposition of all motions and petitions of defendants,
substituted defendants and intervenors in the cause, and in
any appeal or appeals from any order in the cause, from the
date of perfection of such appeal to the date of return of the
certiorari from the appellate court to the court of common
pleas, shall be excluded in the computation of the five (5) year
period herein provided.
49 P.S. § 1701(d) (emphasis added).
5 In so doing, it begins from the premise that here, “we are concerned with the filing and
perfection of a lien … and in any event, a claimant may not obtain judgment on an invalid
mechanics’ lien.” Id. Again, I find this to be a misstatement of the issue before us, which
asks us to consider whether a property owner is required to raise objections to the validity
of a lien in the enforcement action.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 11
addresses the situation where objections to the lien claim are not filed preliminarily to the
subsequent proceedings, i.e., the enforcement action.
The General Assembly did not provide that the right to contest the lien is entirely
immune from waiver. There is no indication in Section 505 that the General Assembly
intended to provide property owners with the ability to contest the lien beyond the
“subsequent proceedings” that are comprised of the enforcement action. Certainly, the
General Assembly could have provided that a challenge made under Section 505 may be
raised at any time, but it did not. Instead, the General Assembly created a statutory
scheme under which a property owner’s ability to challenge a lien claim is subject to the
Rules of Civil Procedure governing civil actions once a claimant attempts to obtain a
judgment on a lien claim.
The Majority finds the ability to waive a challenge to the validity of the lien an
“absurd result the General Assembly cannot have intended.” Majority Op. at 16. I
disagree that this is an absurd result, and the present case exemplifies why this is so.
The parties spent much time and expense, and consumed significant judicial resources,
to litigate this case, only to have the Kings challenge Terra Firma’s failure to perfect its
lien many months after the adjudication. It is truly absurd to find that the General
Assembly would countenance such a waste, particularly of judicial resources.
It is important to recognize that waiver in this instance is supported under prior
iterations of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Waiver of the complaint that a lien was fatally
defective was found in Crane Co. v. Rogers, 60 Pa. Super. 305, 310 (1915), for failure to
raise the defect before the entry of judgment in an enforcement action. Where a property
owner agreed with the claimant that the institution of proceedings to obtain judgment
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 12
should be postponed for three years, it waived any defects in the claim. Mesta Mach. Co.
v. Dunbar Furnace Co., 95 A. 585 (Pa. 1915). When actions on mechanics’ liens involved
the scire facias procedure, objections to the validity of a lien were waived if not raised
before a defensive pleading was filed. See, e.g., Linden Steel Co. v. Imperial Ref. Co.,
20 A. 867 (Pa. 1890). When the scire facias procedure was eliminated, the specter of
waiver remained, as objections were deemed to be waived by filing an affidavit of defense.
Klinefelter v. Baum, 33 A. 582 (Pa. 1896); Titusville Iron-Works v. Keystone Oil Co., 18
A. 739 (Pa. 1889). The General Assembly must be presumed to be aware of the historical
ability for objections to the validity of a mechanics’ lien when it enacted this most recent
iteration and did not explicitly alter it. Cf. In re Emps. of Uniontown Hosp. Ass'n, 247 A.2d
621, 623 (Pa. 1968) (explaining that subsequent to decision of Supreme Court, failure of
General Assembly to change the law as interpreted by the Court creates presumption
that interpretation was in accord with legislative intendment). In fact, the current statute
preserves this practice.
Applying these conclusions to the matter before us, once Terra Firma filed an
enforcement action, the Kings were required to raise their challenge as specified in
Section 505 (by way of preliminary objection or defense) in the manner prescribed by the
relevant Rules of Civil Procedure. They did not. The matter was tried to a verdict, and
only months after the conclusion of trial did the Kings contest the validity of the lien.
Because the Kings did not raise Terra Firma’s failure to file the affidavit of service by
preliminary objection or as a defense in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure, I would find that they waived this challenge. To conclude otherwise invites
the blatant waste of judicial resources, as was the case here. There is no dispute that
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 13
the defect ultimately raised by the Kings was discoverable well before the proceedings
on Terra Firma’s enforcement action. By providing that a property owner can challenge
the lien claim in the enforcement action, but cabining a property owner’s ability to do so
within the confines of the operative Rules of Civil Procedure, the General Assembly has
enacted a scheme that avoids the possibility for such waste.
It is entirely reasonable that the General Assembly sought to establish strict
requirements for the procurement of a mechanics’ lien by a claimant. That does not
compel the conclusion that the General Assembly meant to remove all limitations from
the ability to contest the lien. To the contrary, an examination of the operative statutory
provisions, as illustrated above, leads to the conclusion that the General Assembly
included reasonable limitations on such challenges. Accordingly, I dissent.
Chief Justice Baer joins this dissenting opinion.
[J-88-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 14