GSM Industrial, Inc. v. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co.
2012 R.I. LEXIS 107
| R.I. | 2012Background
- GSM Industrial, Inc., a subcontractor, sought to enforce a Rhode Island mechanic’s lien against Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., Inc. for work on Grinnell’s Cranston, RI property performed under AirPol, Inc. contract.
- AirPol, the general contractor, was paid by Grinnell, but GSM claimed AirPol owed GSM $64,525.44 for materials and installation.
- GSM’s notice of intention to enforce the lien was executed in Pennsylvania by GSM’s president, Tower, and recorded in Cranston’s land records.
- The notarial clause stated an acknowledgement rather than an oath, and no subsequent sworn affidavit was used to convert the acknowledgment into an oath.
- Grinnell argued the notice was not executed under oath, rendering the lien void under the statute; GSM argued the oath requirement was directory or satisfied by Tower’s later affidavit.
- The Superior Court held the oath requirement was mandatory, and the notice failed to satisfy it, voiding the lien; GSM appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice satisfied the oath requirement | GSM argued the oath requirement was met by Tower’s later sworn affidavit. | Grinnell argued the notarial acknowledgment, not an oath, failed § 34-28-4(b). | Yes, the oath requirement was not satisfied; the lien is void. |
| Whether notarial acknowledgment suffices as an oath | Tower’s affidavit later supported an oath interpretation. | Acknowledgment does not verify contents under oath. | No; acknowledgment does not satisfy the oath requirement. |
| Whether the oath requirement is directory or mandatory | GSM urged it was directory, citing liberal remedy rules. | Grinnell urged mandatory compliance with § 34-28-4(b). | Mandatory; statute must be applied as written. |
| Whether the statutory language is unambiguous, leaving no room for construction | Argued flexibility under the “liberal remedy” principle. | Argued strict compliance is required by § 34-28-4(b). | Unambiguous; no room for construction; lien lost for noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faraone v. Faraone, 413 A.2d 90 (R.I. 1980) (statutory language unambiguous; liberal remedy not controlling here)
- Pezzuco Construction, Inc. v. Melrose Associates, L.P., 764 A.2d 174 (R.I. 2001) (oath requirement mandatory; strict compliance)
- Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. v. Van Daam, 604 A.2d 339 (R.I. 1992) (distinguishes sworn affidavit from acknowledgment; notary acts matter)
- State v. Riddell, 38 R.I. 506, 96 A. 531 (R.I. 1916) (oath as stimulus to truthfulness; purpose in statutory context)