Stock Building Supply, LLC v. Parsley Homes of Mazuchet Harbor, LLC
291 Mich. App. 403
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Weimer Plumbing, Inc. intervened to challenge a construction lien on Lot 47 Mazuchet Harbor, Harrison Twp., owned by Stock after a default judgment against the general contractor.
- Weimer performed rough and finish plumbing for the home; finish work was completed by September 29, 2006, under its contract.
- Weimer repaired a kitchen sink leak in December 2006 and performed warranty service on a whirlpool tub and a toilet in May 2007, without evidence of invoicing for the repair work.
- Stock filed a lien complaint in July 2007; Stock later obtained a sheriff’s deed, leaving Lot 47 under Stock’s ownership after redemption.
- trial court held Weimer’s lien invalid for untimely filing, concluding May 2007 warranty work did not restart the 90-day period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether May 2007 warranty repairs restarted the 90-day period | Weimer argues May 2007 work constitutes an improvement extending the period. | Parsley/Stock contends May 2007 repair was warranty work with no new value, not an improvement. | May 2007 work is warranty, not an improvement; no new 90-day period. |
| Whether the 90-day filing period commenced at the completion of the original installation | Weimer contends completion date should be after finish plumbing; warranty work extends period. | Stock argues filing starts at contract completion and May 2007 work does not extend it. | 90-day period commenced at completion of original installation (Sept. 29, 2006); lien filed Aug. 23, 2007 is untimely. |
| Whether Woodman v. Walter governs whether warranty work can extend the lien period | Weimer relies on Woodman to allow extension via subsequent repair. | Defendant relies on Woodman to distinguish warranty work from an improvement. | Woodman controls; warranty work does not extend the 90-day period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodman v. Walter, 204 Mich App 68 (1994) (distinguishes warranty work from an improvement; 90-day period starts at original completion)
- J Propes Electric Co v DeWitt-Newton, Inc, 97 Mich App 295 (1980) (follow-up work may start 90-day period when part of contract, otherwise not applicable)
- Central Ceiling & Partition, Inc v Dep’t of Commerce, 249 Mich App 438 (2002) (90-day requirement not subject to substantial-compliance interpretation; must be exact)