You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Stonepecker, Inc. v. Shepherd Construction Co.

Citations: 373 S.E.2d 295; 188 Ga. App. 513; 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1102Docket: 76988

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 22, 1988; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Stonepecker, Inc. filed a lien against property owned by Cobb Place Associates, L.P., claiming unpaid amounts for rock crushing equipment supplied to Shepherd Construction Company, Inc. Shepherd discharged the lien by securing a bond from St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Stonepecker pursued recovery on the bond, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shepherd and St. Paul, citing Stonepecker's failure to comply with OCGA § 44-14-361.1, which mandates that actions to enforce a lien must be filed within 12 months of the claim becoming due. Metro Construction Equipment Company, which intervened claiming quantum meruit for leased equipment, was similarly affected by the ruling. On appeal, Stonepecker and Metro argued that precedent from Burgess v. Travelers Indem. Co. negated the necessity of the 12-month filing requirement. However, the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the 12-month period is a substantive condition precedent to the validity of the lien. Consequently, Stonepecker's claim on the bond was barred, and summary judgment was properly granted against it, reinforcing the strict adherence to statutory timelines in lien enforcement cases.

Legal Issues Addressed

Mechanic's Lien Enforcement under OCGA § 44-14-361.1

Application: The court applied the statutory requirement that actions to recover on a mechanic's lien must be initiated within 12 months of the claim becoming due.

Reasoning: Shepherd and St. Paul denied the allegations and asserted that Stonepecker's claim was invalid due to a failure to comply with OCGA § 44-14-361.1, which requires that actions to recover on a lien must be initiated within 12 months of the claim becoming due.

Substantive Condition Precedent in Lien Claims

Application: The court held that the 12-month filing requirement is a substantive condition precedent to the validity of the lien, rather than a procedural limitation.

Reasoning: However, the court clarified that the 12-month period is a substantive condition precedent to the validity of the lien and not merely a procedural limitation.

Summary Judgment Standards

Application: The trial court granted summary judgment because Stonepecker did not file the action within the statutory timeframe, thus failing to meet a necessary precondition for recovery on the lien.

Reasoning: The trial court found that Stonepecker filed the action more than 12 months after the claim was due and granted summary judgment in favor of Shepherd and St. Paul.