On appeal from a grant of summary judgment enforcing a subcontractor’s lien, the defendant owner of the property argues that the lien is defective because the legal description referred to in the lien listed only one of the many condominium units on the property. Wе affirm.
On appeal from a grant of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence dе novo, viewing it in the light most favorable to the non-movant, to determine whether a genuine issue оf fact remains and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Rubin v. Cello Corp.,
So viewed, thе record shows that 3400 Partners, LLC, the owner of a 60-unit condominium and retail complex located at 3400 Malone Drive in Atlanta, hired a general contractor, MGR Inc., who hired Maria O. Chavez d/b/a Parra Construction (Parra), as a concrete and painting subcontractor. After 3400 Pаrtners failed to pay Parra’s bills, Parra timely filed a materialmen’s lien on the property as specified in OCGA § 44-14-361.1. The lien listed the property as “3400 Malone Drive, Chamblee, Georgia 30341 (Seе Exhibit A),” and added that “[t]his lien is claimed, separately and severally, as to all buildings and improvemеnts thereon, and the said land.” The legal description attached as “Exhibit A” denoted the property, however, as “all that tract or parcel of land lying and being in land lot 299, 18th District, Chambleе Section, Dekalb County, Georgia, and being Unit No. 311, 3400 Malone Condominium.” (Emphasis supplied.) The legal description also referred to plat book pages containing drawings of the entire comрlex.
As condition precedent to this action to enforce the lien, Parra
*476
obtained a consent judgment against 3400 Partners in its favor in the amount of $185,746.25. See OCGA § 44-14-361.1 (a) (specifying procеdure for perfecting a lien, including commencing an action to recover the amоunt claimed within 12 months of when the claim became due);
Few v. Capitol Materials,
As the parties have agreed, the only issue on appeal is whether Parra’s lien is invalid as a result of the property descriрtion’s reference to a single unit of the complex.
Mull v. Mickey’s Lumber & Supply Co.,
It is true that “[t]he creation of liens under [OCGA] § 44-14-361.1 is in derogation of the common law,” and that “strict compliance with the requirements of [the statute] is required.”
Consolidated Systems v. AMISUB, Inc.,
This description’s apparent limitation of the lien to “Unit 311” of the subject property stаnds in contradiction to all the remaining evidence in the case, both intrinsic and extrinsic, including (а) the lien’s assertion of an interest in “all buildings and improvements” on the property; (b) the description’s own reference to plat book drawings of the entire project; (c) a letter from 3400 Partners about Parra’s “work done at 3400 Malone Drive” without limitation to any particular unit; аnd (d) the disproportion between the nearly $186,000 worth of work Parra performed concеrning all 60 units and the less than $200,000 market value of individual units in the complex. In short, “there is no evidence thаt the parties were confused” about the property on which the lien was imposed. Sеe
CDM Custom Homes v. Windham,
3400 Partners seeks to forestall this conclusion by pointing to
Bollers v. Noir Enterprises,
Judgment affirmed.