Practitioners' Guide to Navigating New Mechanics' Lien Law Amendments
Pennsylvania's Mechanics Lien Law of 1963 was amended in late 2014 to require the commonwealth's Department of General Services to create an internet-based State Construction Notices Directory. As required by the law, the directory went live on Dec. 31, 2016, providing a standardized, statewide, internet-based system for construction notices. This statutory scheme imposes new requirements on project owners, contractors, and subcontractors, compliance with which can drastically affect those parties' rights under the Mechanics Lien Law. Practitioners representing any of the traditional parties in a construction matter should be sure to familiarize themselves with these new provisions, and advise their clients accordingly.
August 21, 2017 at 04:21 PM
13 minute read
Pennsylvania's Mechanics Lien Law of 1963 was amended in late 2014 to require the commonwealth's Department of General Services to create an internet-based State Construction Notices Directory. As required by the law, the directory went live on Dec. 31, 2016, providing a standardized, statewide, internet-based system for construction notices. This statutory scheme imposes new requirements on project owners, contractors, and subcontractors, compliance with which can drastically affect those parties' rights under the Mechanics Lien Law. Practitioners representing any of the traditional parties in a construction matter should be sure to familiarize themselves with these new provisions, and advise their clients accordingly.
The Basics of the New Provisions
Under the new provisions of the Mechanics' Lien Law, the directory provides a database for any “searchable project,” defined as “a project consisting of the erection and construction, or alteration or repair, of an improvement costing a minimum of $1,5 million,” 49 P.S. Section 1201(18). Pursuant to the new scheme, the owner of a searchable project (or the contractor on a searchable project, with the owner's permission) may file a notice of commencement with the directory. The notice of commencement must be filed prior to the commencement of any labor, work or furnishing of materials for the project, and must identify, among other things, the owner, contractor and location of the project. See 49 P.S. Section 1501.3(a). Additionally, if a notice of commencement is filed, the owner must post a copy of the notice at the project site before work begins, and must also (along with the contractor) “make reasonable efforts” to ensure that the notice is a part of the contract documents provided to subcontractors on the project.
The filing of a notice of commencement on a searchable project also triggers certain obligations for any subcontractors performing work or providing material for the project. Within 45 days of first providing labor or materials to a searchable project, each subcontractor must file a notice of furnishing with the directory. The notice of furnishing must identify, among other things, the subcontractor and other contracting party and must provide a general description of the labor or materials furnished for the project. Upon completion of work on a searchable project, the owner may file a notice of completion, and any subcontractors who has not received full payment for their work may file a notice of nonpayment.
These new provisions raise interesting questions for practitioners, and will affect the way they advise their clients, regardless of which side of a construction project they are representing.
Project Owners
For project owners, the creation of the directory provides an additional layer of protection from mechanics' lien claims. It should be emphasized that, for owners of a “searchable project,” participation in the directory is voluntary, as the statute clearly provides that an owner “may,” rather than “shall,” file a notice of commencement. If the owner of a searchable project faces the possibility of exposure to mechanics' lien claims, there is no downside for an owner to file a notice of commencement. Once a notice of commencement has been filed, any subcontractor on the project is obligated to file a notice of furnishing, and a subcontractor's failure to follow those notice requirements forfeits the right to file a lien claim.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Pittsburgh History': Boring Name, Big Development for Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute readSettlement of Commercial Litigation Matters: Approaches and Issues to Keep in Mind
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A More Nuanced Issue': NJ Supreme Court Considers Appellate Rules for Personal Injury Judgments
- 2Drake Sues UMG for Defamation Over Promotion of False Claims of Pedophilia
- 3Quinn Emanuel Files Countersuit Against DOJ in Row Over Premerger Reporting
- 4High Court Rejects 'Heightened' Standard for Employers Defending FLSA Cases
- 5Case With 'Serious Consequences for Corporate Law' Heads to Texas Supreme Court
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250