Hogg Construction, Inc. v. Yorktowne Medical Centre, L.P.
78 A.3d 1152
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Hogg Construction contracted with YTMC Fit-Out to "fit-out" a condominium unit; the unit was conveyed to the Kings on June 26, 2006.
- Hogg alleges $89,533.25 unpaid for the fit-out and filed a Mechanics’ Lien Claim on April 30, 2007; Hogg later filed a complaint upon the lien on February 1, 2008.
- The last progress billing tied to the fit-out was June 26, 2006; a certificate of substantial completion was signed September 18, 2006.
- Hogg’s records show additional work (installation of a receptacle and replacement of a smoke detector) performed/billed November 30, 2006, though billed to a different job number.
- Trial court struck the lien and granted summary judgment for the Kings, ruling Hogg’s claim was untimely under the pre-amendment four-month rule and that Hogg failed to file a complaint under a separate docket number as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1653.
- The Superior Court reversed both orders and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which filing deadline applies: four months (pre-2007) or six months (post-amendment)? | Hogg: six-month deadline applies because the lien was filed after the 2007 amendments took effect. | Kings: four-month deadline applies because the work was completed in 2006 before the amendments. | Six-month rule applies to liens filed after Jan 1, 2007; trial court erred applying four-month rule. |
| Was there a genuine factual dispute about the date of completion (i.e., whether last work occurred Nov 30, 2006)? | Hogg: yes — evidence shows last labor/material on Nov 30, 2006 (receptacle/smoke detector), so filing could be timely under six months. | Kings: the certificate of substantial completion (Sept 18, 2006) and billing to a different job number show completion earlier and the November work unrelated. | There is a genuine issue of material fact whether the Nov 30 work was the contract’s last labor/material; summary judgment was improper. |
| Did Hogg fail to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1653 by not filing the complaint under a separate docket number? | Hogg: filing the complaint at the same docket number is not prohibited; Rule 1659 contemplates actions at the lien docket; no prejudice shown. | Kings: rules require separate dockets for lien claim and ensuing action; same-docket filing is fatal. | The rules do not mandate separate docket numbers nor show that the error affected substantial rights; striking the lien was erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. Kessler, 46 A.3d 724 (Pa. Super. 2012) (amended Mechanics’ Lien Act provisions apply to liens obtained under the amended act even if work began before the amendments)
- Brubacher Excavating, Inc. v. Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A., 995 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2010) (summary judgment standard and discussion of Mechanics’ Lien Act amendments)
- Tully Drilling Co. v. Shenkin, 597 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 1991) (describes the two-stage mechanics’ lien procedure; discussed as partly dicta regarding separate docket numbers)
- Summers v. CertainTeed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (articulates Pennsylvania summary judgment standards)