Arthur B. Siri, Inc. v. Bridges
| Decision Date | 01 March 1961 |
| Citation | 189 Cal.App.2d 599,11 Cal.Rptr. 322 |
| Parties | ARTHUR B. SIRI, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. L. V. BRIDGES and E. W Gerhardt and G. W. Trotman, individually and doing business as Gerhardt and Trotman, a Copartnership, Defendants, L. V. Bridges, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. Civ. 9957. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rader & Truitt, Arcata, for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.
Falk & Falk, and Robert C. Dunn, Eureka, for defendant-appellant-respondent.
L. V. Bridges has appealed from a judgment in favor of Arthur B. Siri, Inc., a California corporation, which judgment determined that the corporation has a valid lien on certain real property owned by Bridges and which ordered that the lien be foreclosed.
In February, 1956, Bridges entered into a contract with defendants Gerhardt and Trotman whereby the former agreed to sell certain real property for $24,000, and Gerhardt and Trotman, who were building contractors, agreed to subdivide the property, grade and surface the streets, and build a home on each of the 12 lots. It was also agreed that as each lot was sold Bridges would execute a grant deed to Gerhardt and Trotman and place the deed in escrow with instructions that the deed be delivered upon payment of $2,000. The agreement also provided that Gerhardt and Trotman would have immediate possession of the property and that they would have until September, 1957, to complete the construction and sale of the homes.
The property was wooded and the second growth timber was sold to a lumber company who had the timber removed. These operations commenced between March 1st and March 15, 1956. On March 19, 1956, Bridges obtained actual notice that the property was being logged, and on March 26, 1956, he posted a notice of nonresponsibility. A copy of this notice was recorded the following day. Prior to the start of the logging operations Gerhardt and a surveyor did certain survey work on the property.
On May 30, 1956, Gerhardt and Trotman entered into a contract with Arthur B. Siri, Inc., respondent herein, whereby respondent agreed to clear and grade the land and construct streets, curbs and sidewalks. Neither respondent nor its employees had actual notice of the notice of nonresponsibility. Respondent performed his contract and did some additional work. On January 17, 1957, respondent recorded its verified claim of lien, and on April 17, 1957, this action was commenced. Gerhardt was adjudicated a bankrupt and respondent was listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings so no judgment was entered against Gerhardt.
The court determined that Siri had a lien under the provisions of section 1184.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the notice of nonresponsibility was ineffectual to prevent the lien from attaching to the land; that Siri had a lien in the amount of $22,423.20 plus interest and costs; and that it was entitled to a judgment in the aforementioned amount, plus attorney fees against Trotman for $2,500. This appeal by Bridges followed. Siri has cross-appealed because the attorney fees were not also made a lien on the land.
Appellant Bridges claims that the court erred in concluding that his notice of nonresponsibility was ineffective to prevent the lien from attaching to his land.
We shall first determine whether this contention is valid. Section 1183.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part that '[e]very building or other improvement or other work mentioned in this chapter * * * constructed, altered or repaired upon any land with the knowledge of the owner * * *, shall be held to have been constructed, * * * at the instance of such owner * * *, and such interest * * * shall be subject to any lien filed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless such owner * * * shall, within 10 days after he shall have obtained knowledge of such construction, * * *, give notice that he will not be responsible for the same by posting a notice in writing to that effect in some conspicuous place upon the property, and shall also, within the same period, file for record a verified copy of said notice in the office of the county recorder * * *.'
The knowledge which is referred to in the statute is knowledge of actual construction not intended construction. Hayward L. & I. Co. v. Orondo Mines, 34 Cal.App.2d 697, 94 P.2d 380. A premature notice of nonresponsibility is ineffective to relieve an owner from liability. Hayward L. & I. Co. v. Ross, 32 Cal.App.2d 455, 90 P.2d 135;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens Suburban Co. v. Rosemont Development Co.
...of suit to enforce the contract. The contract may impliedly as well as expressly permit their recovery. (Arthur B. Siri, Inc. v. Bridges, 189 Cal.App.2d 599, 603, 11 Cal.Rptr. 322.) While the word 'costs' does not usually embrace counsel fees, the phrase 'costs and expenses' does. (Mitsuuch......
-
In re Morrell
...of a building. English v. Olympic Auditorium, 217 Cal. 631, 637, 20 P.2d 946, 948 (1933). See also Arthur B. Siri, Inc. v. Bridges, 189 Cal. App.2d 599, 602, 11 Cal.Rptr. 322, 324 (1961). In the present case, there was no easily visible work or labor on the ground; thus, the work of improve......
-
Jen-Mar Const. Co. v. Brown
...attorney fees in the event of suit to enforce the contract. (Anger v. Borden, 38 Cal.2d 136, 238 P.2d 976; Arthur B. Siri, Inc. v. Bridges, 189 Cal.App.2d 599, 603, 11 Cal.Rptr. 322; Citizens Suburban Co. v. Rosemont Dev. Co., supra, 244 A.C.A. 745, 762, 53 Cal.Rptr. 551.) But attorney fees......
-
Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee
...building the fact that the owner of the land will not be responsible for such labor or materials . . .' (Arthur B. Siri, Inc. v. Bridges, 189 Cal.App.2d 599, 602, 11 Cal.Rptr. 322, 324.)5 In said declaration it is stated as follows: 'Counsel for defendants sought during the trial to establi......