IN THE MATTER OF GLEN HAVEN ESTATES, 25426.

• Decision Date: 30 August 1954
• Docket Number: No. 25426.,25426.
• Citation: 123 F. Supp. 659
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: In the Matter of GLEN HAVEN ESTATES, Inc., Bankrupt.

123 F. Supp. 659

In the Matter of GLEN HAVEN ESTATES, Inc., Bankrupt.

No. 25426.

United States District Court D. Connecticut, Bankruptcy Division.

August 30, 1954.

Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, New Haven, Conn., for trustees of the Bankrupt.

Gorman, Bohonnon & Peck, New Haven, Conn., for Mechanic's Lienor.

ANDERSON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on a petition for review of an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy, invalidating a mechanic's lien which the petitioner, Frederick C. Hahn, had recorded in the New Haven land records on January 12, 1953, just preceding the adjudication in bankruptcy of the Glen Haven Estates, Inc., whose petition in bankruptcy was filed January 19, 1953. The mechanic's lien stated that the lienor, Hahn, had commenced to furnish materials and engineering and surveying services upon land and premises owned by Glen Haven Estates, Inc. on September 25, 1951, and had ceased to do so on December 11, 1952.

The question which is here for review is whether or not, in the light of the Connecticut Statutes, the petitioner Hahn properly described the property upon which he claims to have a lien.

Section 7217 of the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, Revision of 1949, (subsequently Section 1273b of the 1951 Supplement to the Statutes) reads in part:

"If any person shall have a claim for more than ten dollars for materials furnished or services rendered in the construction, raising, removal or repairs of any building or any of its appurtenances, and such claim shall be by virtue of an agreement with or by consent of the owner of the land upon which such building is being erected or shall have been erected or shall have been moved, or of some person having authority from or rightfully acting for such owner in procuring such labor or materials, such building, with the land on which it stands, shall be subject to the payment of such claim. Such claim shall be a lien on such land, building and appurtenances and shall take precedence of any other incumbrance originating after the commencement of such services, or the furnishing of any such materials, * * *."

Section 7218 of the Connecticut Statutes reads in part:

"No such lien shall be valid, unless the person performing such services or furnishing such materials, within sixty days after he has ceased so to do, shall lodge with the town clerk of the town in which such building is situated a certificate in writing, describing the premises, the amount claimed as a lien thereon, and the date of the commencement of the performance of services or furnishing of materials, stating that the amount claimed is justly due, as nearly as the same can be ascertained, and subscribed and sworn to by the claimant; which certificate shall be recorded by the town clerk with deeds of land; * * *."

The pertinent portions of the Findings of Fact by the Referee are the following:

"On and for a long time prior to September 20, 1952 and at all times subsequent thereto, the real property standing in the name of the bankrupt had been sub-divided into a large number of separate building lots, of which a sub-division map dated October 15, 1951 is on file in the office of the Town Clerk of New Haven. Thirty-one of such building lots had partially completed one-family houses upon them and each lot was separately mortgaged. In addition to the thirty-one properties standing in the name of the bankrupt, said sub-division map showed approximately sixty other properties on which single family houses had been constructed and which the bankrupt had conveyed to other parties prior to the filing of any of the mechanic's liens described in Paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of this finding.

"Each of said certificates of mechanic's lien described the premises upon which the lien was claimed substantially in terms of the entire tract covered by said sub-division map, without any reference to particular lots or buildings thereon.

"At said hearing each of said lienors admitted that it was a practical impossibility to allocate his charges to the particular building or buildings for which materials were furnished or services rendered."

The referee concluded that the petitioner's mechanic's lien failed to comply with the requirement of the Connecticut Statutes that the certificate of lien describe the premises upon which the lien is claimed, and he declared the lien to be null and void. Although the facts found seem somewhat spare, counsel for both parties orally stated that the finding contained all of the essential facts of the case. However, counsel for the petitioner, without contradiction from the Trustees' attorneys, did add that the services rendered by...