First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership
Citation | 230 Conn. 807,646 A.2d 812 |
Decision Date | 16 August 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 14782,14782 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | FIRST CONSTITUTION BANK v. HARBOR VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. |
Jonathan S. Bowman, with whom was Paul H. Bergemann, for appellant (defendant Fairfield Dock Company, Inc.).
Jonathan D. Elliot, with whom was Monica M. Copertino, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether a mechanic's lien filed by the defendant, Fairfield Dock Company, Inc., 1 properly executed and indexed in a town's land records, is valid as against a subsequent encumbrance under the facts of this case if the description of property attached to the certificate of mechanic's lien became detached prior to the recording of the lien certificate. The plaintiff, First Marine Corporation, 2 appealed from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court following a determination of priority in which the trial court upheld the validity of the mechanic's lien. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and concluded that the mechanic's lien was invalid without the attachment containing the complete description of the property. First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership, 31 Conn.App. 15, 622 A.2d 1063 (1993). We granted the defendant's petition for certification 3 and now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The parties' stipulations and the evidence in the record reveal the following facts. First Constitution Bank (First Constitution), the predecessor in interest to the plaintiff, instituted the present action to recover sums due under a commercial revolving loan note. The note was secured by a mortgage on six contiguous parcels of land (parcels) that are located along the Mianus River on River Road in Greenwich and are owned by Harbor Village Limited Partnership (Harbor Village) and William O. Rockwood, Jr., trustee. 4 The loan proceeds, in the amount of $21,500,000, were used to finance the construction of a marina facility and a dockominium at the site of the parcels.
On March 3, 1989, before the recording of the mortgage, 5 the defendant began to render services and furnish materials in the construction and improvement of the parcels in connection with the marina and dockominium project. On April 16, 1990, the defendant timely filed a certificate of mechanic's lien on the parcels with the Greenwich town clerk. The certificate of mechanic's lien described the property to which the lien attached as being "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." (Emphasis added.) The trial court found that the defendant's attorney, who had prepared the certificate of mechanic's lien, had also prepared Exhibit A 6 to be attached to that certificate for filing in the town clerk's office and had personally delivered the certificate, with Exhibit A attached, to the sheriff, now deceased. The lien certificate that ultimately was recorded on the land records, however, did not include Exhibit A, 7 and, consequently, did not contain references to the boundaries and street addresses of the parcels.
Notwithstanding this omission, the Greenwich town clerk correctly noted the street location of the property in the grantor/grantee indices and indexed the lien under the appropriate headings for the defendant, Harbor Village and Rockwood. Additionally, Exhibit A was attached to the copies of the mechanic's lien certificate that were served on Harbor Village and Rockwood as owners of the parcels, in connection with the recording of the lien. Moreover, Exhibit A was attached to the lis pendens filed on the land records by the defendant in connection with an independent action to foreclose its mechanic's lien. 8 Finally, at all material times, neither Harbor Village nor Rockwood owned any other property in Greenwich other than the parcels.
By an amended complaint dated December 18, 1991, following a default on the loan by Harbor Village, First Constitution instituted a foreclosure action to recover sums due under the loan. In response to First Constitution's complaint, the defendant claimed that its mechanic's lien took priority over the mortgage duly recorded by First Constitution. 9 Thereafter, the plaintiff, as successor in interest to First Constitution, filed a motion for determination of priority and for judgment of strict foreclosure, asserting that the defendant's mechanic's lien was defective and, therefore, that the defendant's interest in the parcels, if any, was subsequent to that of First Constitution. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court concluded that the defendant's mechanic's lien was valid and, consequently, was prior in right to the mortgage recorded by First Constitution. Accordingly, the trial court found in favor of the defendant, rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, and set law days in inverse order of priorities. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court. This appeal by the defendant followed.
The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that its certificate of mechanic's lien is invalid. It argues that the mechanic's lien is valid under General Statutes § 49-34 10 because the certificate of mechanic's lien was indexed correctly in the land records and was within the chain of title, and because the certificate, as recorded, referred to the omitted Exhibit A. We agree.
It is well established that a mechanic's lien Tramonte v. Wilens, 89 Conn. 520, 523, 94 A. 978 (1915). We also have repeatedly stated, however, that, although a mechanic's lien is in derogation of the common law, we do not compel a strict construction of its requirements. Wilcox v. Woodruff, 61 Conn. 578, 585, 24 A. 1056 (1891). "We have long endorsed a policy favoring liberal construction of claimed inadequacies in certificates of mechanic's liens in order to achieve the remedial purposes of the mechanic's lien statutes." J.C. Penney Properties, Inc. v. Peter M. Santella Co., 210 Conn. 511, 514, 555 A.2d 990 (1989). We recognize that the remedial purpose of mechanic's lien law is "to furnish security for a contractor's labor and materials" and that this beneficent purpose requires "a generous construction." Seaman v. Climate Control Corp., 181 Conn. 592, 597, 436 A.2d 271 (1980); see J.C. Penney Properties, Inc. v. Peter M. Santella Co., supra, 210 Conn. at 514, 555 A.2d 990 ( ).
J.C. Penney Properties, Inc. v. Peter M. Santella Co., supra, 210 Conn. at 515, 555 A.2d 990; see also Halsted & Harmount Co. v. Arick, 76 Conn. 382, 387, 56 A. 628 (1904); Nichols v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177, 180 (1883); Marston v. Kenyon, 44 Conn. 349, 356 (1877). As we have reasoned many times, "we do not think a court of equity can be called upon to declare [a] lien utterly void upon the motion of persons who have lost nothing by [the] mistake." Marston v. Kenyon, supra, at 356.
Therefore, Tramonte v. Wilens, supra, 89 Conn. at 524, 94 A. 978; see also Rose v. Persse & Brooks Paper Works, 29 Conn. 256, 266 (1860) ( ). Where, however, there has been "no attempt to give an accurate and true description, then ... the certificate ought to be held void, as no better than a total omission to attempt to comply with its provisions." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tramonte v. Wilens, supra, 89 Conn. at 525, 94 A. 978.
Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we conclude that the defendant's inadvertent failure to include Exhibit A in the recordation does not indicate a failure to attempt to comply with the provisions of § 49-34. The defendant properly executed the lien certificate and served it, along with Exhibit A, on Harbor Village and Rockwood in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Astoria Fed. Mortg. Corp. v. Genesis Ltd. P'ship
...of demonstrating statutory compliance.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership, 230 Conn. 807, 821, 646 A.2d 812 (1994). In this same decision, however, our Supreme Court noted that reliance on mortgage law to assess ......
-
TDS Painting & Restoration, Inc. v. Copper Beech Farm, Inc.
...TDS Painting acted in bad faith, and, therefore, that the lien was invalid. Copper Beech cites First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership, 230 Conn. 807, 816, 646 A.2d 812 (1994), in support of that TDS Painting argues, inter alia, that Copper Beech failed to pursue its Janu......
-
Cornelius v. Rosario
...substantial compliance has been achieved, the lack of discernable prejudice is relevant. See First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership, 230 Conn. 807, 821-22, 646 A.2d 812 (1994) (mechanic's lien valid against subsequent encumbrancer despite failure strictly to comply with ......
-
Astoria Fed. Mortg. Corp. v. Genesis Ltd.
...of demonstrating statutory compliance." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership, 230 Conn. 807, 821, 646 A.2d 812 (1994). In this same decision, however,our Supreme Court noted that reliance on mortgage law to assess a......
-
2005 Connecticut Real Property Law Developments
...that the disclosure report was within the exclusive 151 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 49-51 (2005). 152 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 49-34 (2005). 153 230 Conn. 807 (1994). 154 Maimore, Inc., 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 21 at * 10. 155 Id. at *12-13. 156 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 540 (Mar. 22, 2005). control of Ms. H......