Desai v. A. R. Design Grp., Inc., 799 S.E.2d 506

A.R. Design recorded mechanic’s liens against two McLean, VA properties held in a trust (Woodside Drive and Towlston Road); Ulka Desai was successor trustee and executrix at time of the filings.
A.R. Design used the official CC-1512 form; the Woodside memorandum lists the owner as “Ulka D. Desai & Ulka D. Desai as executor of Estate of Lakshmi Desai” and does not use the word “trustee.”
Both memoranda identify A.R. Design as claimant but are signed “Abbas Rouhani VP”; the line for an agent’s signature was crossed out and Rouhani signed on the claimant line.
Neither memorandum states a date from which interest is claimed; neither expressly lists the time(s) when the debt is or will be due, though each states the amount claimed and that it is “payable as therein stated” and were signed on the filing date.
Desai filed suit to invalidate the liens, alleging (1) failure to identify the owner as trustee (Woodside), (2) improper signature by an agent identified as claimant, and (3) failure to state interest/date amounts are due. The trial court upheld the liens; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of the word “trustee” in naming owner invalidates the lien	Listing Ulka without "trustee" failed to name the owner	Naming Ulka (successor trustee holding legal title) sufficiently identifies the owner	The memorandum validly named the owner; adding “trustee” unnecessary
Whether agent signed in wrong capacity (signed as claimant rather than agent) invalidates the affidavit	Rouhani improperly signed as claimant; form error fatal	Rouhani was VP and A.R. Design claimant was identified; no prejudice and purpose satisfied	Substantial compliance; signature did not invalidate lien
Whether failure to state date from which interest is claimed is fatal	Omission of interest date conflicts with statutory form and is defective	Lienor claims no interest; no requirement to state interest if none claimed	Not defective — no interest claimed and no prejudice to owner
Whether failure to state time(s) when amount is or will be due invalidates lien	Missing due-date info frustrates quick validity assessment and harms notice function	Form in Code §43-5 controls; memorandum states amount is “payable as therein stated” and was signed on filing date, indicating presently due; substantial compliance suffices	Substantial compliance under Code §43-5; memorandum provided sufficient notice and was valid

Wallace v. Brumback, 177 Va. 36 (mechanic’s lien may attach to equitable as well as legal estates; notice purpose)
Loyola Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Herndon Lumber & Millwork, Inc., 218 Va. 803 (definition of "owner" re: land)
Curtis v. Lee Land Trust, 235 Va. 491 (legal title vests in successor trustee)
Clement v. Adams Bros.-Paynes Co., 113 Va. 547 (signature/agency issues in affidavit context)
Reliable Constructors v. CFJ Props., 263 Va. 279 (definition of "inaccuracy" and discussion of statutory conformity)
American Standard Homes Corp. v. Reinecke, 245 Va. 113 (interpretation of "time or times when . . . due and payable")
Merch. & Mech. Sav. Bank v. Dashiell, 66 Va. (25 Gratt.) 616 (policy justification for mechanic’s lien)
Akers v. James T. Barnes of Wash., D.C., Inc., 227 Va. 367 (substantial compliance concept in contract context)