29.1 Use the IRAC Method to breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Te

Question

29.1 Use the IRAC Method to breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Test), the Facts Applied to the Test (Analysis), and the Conclusion/ Holding of the case.

picerne Construction Corp. v. Villas Case Analysis 29.1 opeal, Third District, 244 Cal.App.4th 1201, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 (2016 n the Language of the Court MUR, I lJudge] . . * The trial court determined agent of the Picerne is entitled to foreclose its improvement. work of Castellino [Villas, LLCI and Picern Conseraction Corporation] entered to an agrecment in which Picerne dence supports the trial court's finding On appeal to this court] Castellino that the owner accepted the project as contends Picerne does not have a September 8, 2006.* * Picerne timely vould build an apartment comple valid mechanic's lien because Picerne recorded its claim of mechanic's lien a West did not record a claim of mechanic's lien within 90 days afer September 8, 2006 apict or property) in the City of Elk within 90 days after substantial comple Gone California] (the City). The proj- tion of the project. t consisted of 11 apartment buildings eparate garages, a clubhouse, and other iclities .. Castellino nevertheless claims that the time for Picerne to record its In order to have a valid mechanic's claim of mechanic's lien began to run lien, a claimant must record a claim of lien within a prescribed period of time afier asserts the phrase "completion of the before September 8, 2006. ICastellindl The City issued certificates of occu completion of the work of improvement work of improvement" in Section 3115 pancy for the 11 buildings within the przycct . . . after a city inspector con- ducted a final inspection of each build- ment ofa mechanic's lien. [Emphasis ·.. . The failure of a claimant to timely record ? claim o lien precludes the en means substantial completion of the work of improvement, and the project was substantially completed by July 25 2006, when the City issued the final cer- tificate of occupan The first certificates of occupancy [When Picerne filed its lien, fornia Civil Code Section 3115, which] mechanic's lien starute which interpreted relationship with the owner for the ane isued on May 3, 2006. The final erficne of ocupancy was issued on mechanic's liens were governed by Cali. There are cases construing the luly 25, 2006. nd subcontrac- provided, "Each original contractor la "completion" as substantial contractor who has a uns continued to perform work at the project after July 25. 2006 But these cases were decided befo the Legislature amended Section 3115 Olsen (Castellino's representa- record his claim of lien after he com- to define] completion of th he projectl signed a document Owner's ork], in order to enforce a lien, must pletes his contract and before the expira- improvement as actual completion of Acceptance of Site" for tion of 90 days after the completion of the work of improvement.. The the work of improvement." [According Legisature did not define "completion to Section 3116, the term "work of improvement" means the entire structure tial completion. Courts have looked at or scheme of improvement Canlino on September 8, 2006 of the work of improvement" as substan- began renting apartments Picerne recorded a claim of mechan t as a whole] whether the work at issue was required under the claimant's contract in deter- whol property in October 2006. .The [California State] Leg- islature defined the term completion mining whether a work of improvement as "actual completion of the work ofwas completed. improvement." In addition,deemed Castellino a to be equivalent to a completion [(was] the term "completion"to mean ii lien on November 28, 2006. ceme filed a complaint [in a argues that interpretin e court] to foreclose its en on December 29, 2006. to be equivalent to a completion substantial completion would be sound ber 29, 2006. Case 29.1 Continues

Explanation / Answer

Caption: Picerne Construction Corp. v. Villas

Cause of Action: The plaintiff was hired by the defendant Castellino Villas to construct an apartment. The defendant defaulted its obligations and did not give payment to the plaintiff Picerne Constructions. Due to this reason, the plaintiff filed a case of arbitration and mechanic’s lien against the defendant

Legal Issues and Rules:

The court contemplated upon the validity of the mechanic’s lien. The validity was based on the correct project completion date. This completion date could be validated based on facts. Section 3115 highlights the window in which the mechanic’s lien must be claimed. Substantial evidence proved that defendant had accepted the project on Sep 8, 2006 and the plaintiff had claimed mechanic’s lien on Nov 28, 2006, which lies within the time period stated by Section 3115.

Ruling and Reason: The plaintiff’s appeal was granted.

Citation: Moorefield Construction, Inc. v. Intervest–Mortgage Investment Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 146, 154 (Moorefield Construction)

Scott, Blake & Wynne v. Summit Ridge Estates, Inc. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 347, 357 (Scott, Blake & Wynne?)

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 2
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.