423 Pa. 632 | Pa. | 1966
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
The model apartment built by appellant is, in my view, a permanent structure within the meaning of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Thus, I believe the court below erred in striking the lien and would remand the case for determination of unresolved factual issues.
In my view a proper disposition of this case requires us to consider two additional issues: (1) whether the appellant-architect may obtain a lien for services which were not absolutely essential to the construction of the model apartment, and (2) the extent to which the lien may attach to the land surrounding the situs of the improvement.
In Alan Porter Lee, Inc. v. Du-Rite Products Co., 366 Pa. 548, 79 A. 2d 218 (1951), this Court held that an architect may have a mechanics’ lien only in those cases in which he supervises the actual construction. This holding was later codified in the Act of August 24, 1963, P. L. 1175, §201(4), 49 P.S. §1201(4) where the term “contractor” is defined to include an architect “who, by contract with the owner ... in addition to the preparation of drawings, specifications and contract documents also superintends or supervises any such erection, construction, alteration or repair.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Act would, therefore, appear to require a direct relationship between the planning and the con
It is also clear that the Act would limit the extent of appellant’s lien to the apartment and the adjacent curtilage. Thus, on remand, I would instruct the court to act accordingly.
Lead Opinion
Opinion
The Court being evenly divided, the order of the court below is affirmed.
