First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership

• Decision Date: 13 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 11548,11548
• Citation: 31 Conn.App. 15,622 A.2d 1063
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: FIRST CONSTITUTION BANK v. HARBOR VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.

Page 1063

622 A.2d 1063

31 Conn.App. 15

FIRST CONSTITUTION BANK v. HARBOR VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.

No. 11548.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 19, 1993.

Decided April 13, 1993.

Jonathan D. Elliot, with whom was Monica M. Copertino, Southport, for appellant (substitute plaintiff).

Jonathan S. Bowman, with whom was Paul H. Begemann, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant Fairfield Dock Co., Inc.).

Before EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, FOTI and LAVERY, JJ.

FOTI, Judge.

The plaintiff ¹ appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered after a determination of priority. The plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly upheld the validity of the defendant's ² mechanic's lien (1) despite the fact that the recorded certificate contained no description of the property other than naming the town in which the property is located, and (2) despite the defendant's failure to record and serve a notice of lis pendens, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325, within one year of the date of the lien as contemplated by General Statutes § 49-39. The plaintiff also claims that the trial court improperly found that its mortgage did not have priority over the defendant's mechanic's lien under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. We agree with the plaintiff's first claim, that the insufficient property description invalidates the lien. Because this is dispositive of the appeal, we need not address the remaining claims.

First Constitution Bank (FCB) instituted the present action to recover sums due under a commercial revolving loan note, which was secured by a mortgage on certain parcels of land located in Greenwich and owned by Harbor Village Limited Partnership (Harbor Village) and William O. Rockwood, Jr., trustee. First Marine Corporation, the assignee of the mortgage, was substituted as the plaintiff.

The mortgaged property consists of six contiguous parcels located along the Mianus River on River Road in Greenwich. Three of the parcels are owned by Harbor Village; the other three parcels are owned by Rockwood. Each parcel bears its own street address. The loan proceeds, in the amount of $21,500,000, were obtained for the purpose of financing the construction by Harbor Village of a marina facility and dockominium at the site of the six parcels. The loan was advanced by FCB in two stages. First, on or about December 29, 1988, FCB made a $11,451,500 bridge loan to Harbor Village so that it could pay off a prior loan by Mechanics and Farmers Bank (M & F), which had been secured by a mortgage recorded in 1987. As security for the bridge loan, M & F issued a letter of credit in the amount of $11,451,500 in favor of FCB. On May 8, 1989, Harbor Village and Rockwood executed a $21,500,000 promissory note to FCB, which in turn advanced $11,451,500, enabling Harbor Village to pay off the bridge loan. On the same day, the secured M & F mortgage was released, and Harbor Village granted a $21,500,000 mortgage to FCB.

On March 3, 1989, after the recording of the M & F mortgages but before the recording of the FCB mortgage, the defendant began rendering services and furnishing materials to the project and continued to do so until February 13, 1990. On April 16, 1990, the defendant filed a certificate of mechanic's lien with the Greenwich town clerk. The lien certificate described the property as "situated in the Town of Greenwich, County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, on a lot of land belonging to said HARBOR VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and WILLIAM ROCKWOOD, JR., TRUSTEE, and bounded as follows: SEE EXHIBIT 'A' ATTACHED." Only a two page document was filed; Exhibit A was not attached. The plaintiff claims that the property subject to the mechanic's lien is not described as required by statute, and therefore the lien is invalid. We agree. ³

General Statutes § 49-34 sets forth the requirements for the validity of a mechanic's lien, providing as pertinent: "A mechanic's lien is not valid, unless the person performing the services or furnishing the materials, (1) within ninety days after he has ceased to do so, lodges with the town clerk of the town in which the building, lot or plot of land is situated a certificate in writing, which shall be recorded by the town clerk with deeds of land, (A) describing the premises, the amount claimed as a lien thereon, the name or names of the person against whom the lien is being filed and the date of the commencement of the performance of services...." (Emphasis added.)

"Because the mechanic's lien is a creature of statute, a lienor must comply with statutory requirements in order to perfect his claim." H & S Torrington Associates v. Lutz Engineering Co., 185 Conn. 549, 553, 441 A.2d 171 (1981). The provisions of the statute creating the mechanic's lien must be complied with in order to validate that lien. See City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Borsuk, 131 Conn. 640, 645, 41 A.2d 775 (1945); Swift & Upson Lumber Co. v. W.L. Hatch Co., 115 Conn. 494, 498, 162 A. 19 (1932); White v. Washington School District, 42 Conn. 541, 545 (1875).

"Although the mechanic's lien statute creates a statutory right in derogation of the common law; Camputaro v. Stuart Hardwood Corporation, 180 Conn. 545, 550, 429 A.2d 796 (1980); Gruss v. Miskinis, 130 Conn. 367, 370, 34 A.2d 600 (1943); its provisions should be liberally construed in order to implement its remedial purpose of furnishing security for one who provides services or materials.... Our interpretation, however, may not depart from reasonable compliance with the specific terms of the statute under the guise of a liberal construction." (...