206 A.3d 509
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- AICB (subcontractor) completed work on Benjamin's Desk's office improvements and alleges Brass (general contractor) owes it $89,111.19.
- AICB sent a formal notice of intent to file a mechanics' lien to Benjamin's Desk via FedEx; delivery was signed for on March 21, 2017.
- AICB filed a complaint to enforce the lien on June 2, 2017. Benjamin's Desk filed preliminary objections (demurrer) asserting improper service under the Mechanics' Lien Law.
- Trial court sustained the preliminary objections, struck AICB's complaint for lack of proper notice, relying in part on Lin (private postmark issues), and AICB appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether service by a private courier (FedEx) satisfied the Mechanics' Lien Law's provision allowing service "by an adult in the same manner as a writ of summons in assumpsit," and whether technical noncompliance warrants dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the lien notice by FedEx satisfied the Mechanics' Lien Law's "adult in the same manner as a writ of summons" option | FedEx courier counts as a "competent adult" and thus complied with service equivalent to personal service for a writ of summons | Service must follow Rule-based methods for original process; private courier delivery is insufficient | Reversed trial court: private courier delivery giving actual notice is acceptable absent prejudice or intent to stall (McCreesh rationale) |
| Whether technical noncompliance with service rules requires dismissal of the lien claim | Technical defects should not defeat claims where defendant received actual notice | Strict compliance required to protect procedural rules | Court adopted McCreesh: technical noncompliance excused if no prejudice or intent to delay; actual notice suffices |
| Whether Lin (private postage mark unreliability) mandates rejecting private-courier delivery | AICB: Lin is distinguishable—Lin addressed private postmarks for timeliness of appeals, not delivery of original process | Trial court relied on Lin to reject private-postmark/ private-meter evidence | Court distinguished Lin (postmark reliability/timeliness) from service issues and declined to apply it here |
| Whether striking complaint without leave to amend was appropriate | Complaint should not have been struck where service defect (if any) could be cured and facts alleged were sufficient | Benjamin's Desk sought dismissal for lack of proper notice | Striking without leave was an abuse; remand for further proceedings (trial court order reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (technical noncompliance with service rules excused where defendant had actual notice and no prejudice or intent to delay)
- Lin v. Employment Compensation Board of Review, 735 A.2d 697 (Pa. 1999) (private postage meter postmarks lack the reliability of U.S. postal postmarks for determining timeliness)
- Khawaja v. RE/MAX Central, 151 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections/demurrer)
- Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (courts should avoid penalizing plaintiffs for technical procedural missteps where purpose is served)
- Leidich v. Franklin, 575 A.2d 914 (Pa. Super. 1990) (applied Lamp to limit dismissal for procedural technicalities)