New Jersey Construction Lien Law Tag Archives

Published on: January 19, 2021

New Jersey Construction Law Opinion Explains Elements of Construction Lien Law and Prompt Payment Act

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court recently issued an opinion illustrating several important points regarding construction liens under the New Jersey Construction Lien Law and collection of payment under the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act.

Background

In that case, Prime Time Construction, LLC vs. Vimco, Incorporated, , Prime Time Construction, LLC was the general contractor on three construction projects in construction-machine-3412240__340-300x202 Paterson. The properties were owned by three limited liability companies which were related to Prime Time. Prime Time executed written subcontracts with Build Logistics, Inc. (“BL”) to do the masonry and excavation work on the projects. BL executed a written contract with Vimco to provide materials for two of the projects. Vimco provided the materials directly to BL; it had no contract with Prime Time or the owners. Prime Time paid BL the full amount under the contract for all the work it performed and materials it provided. However, BL abandoned the project and failed to pay Vimco.

Published on: September 28, 2020

New Jersey Construction Law: Words in Construction Contracts Mean What They Say

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A recent New Jersey construction law opinion by the Appellate Division in the case of CNJ Construction Corporation vs. Autobuilders General Contracting Services, Inc. illustrates just how important the precise language in a construction contracts is, and just how important it construction-9-10-300x225 is to have a well-written contract.

The Case of CNJ v. Autobuilders

Autobuilders General Contracting Services, Inc. was general contractor on a project for the construction of a Maserati dealership in Morris County. Autobuilders entered into four subcontracts with CNJ Construction Corporation for demolition, concrete, steel and site work on the project. Each of the subcontracts contained a provision that Autobuilders could terminate the contracts for cause if CNJ failed to perform, but had to give CNJ three days written notice prior to termination, during which time CNJ could cure the default and avoid termination. The notices had to be delivered by certain specified means, which did not include regular mail. No notice was required if CNJ abandoned the job. The contract provided that if CNJ was terminated for cause, it would be liable for any increased cost incurred by Autobuilders for completing its work on the project with other subcontractors.

Published on: March 30, 2019

Recent New Jersey Appellate Division Decision Examines The Amended Sections Of The Construction Lien Law

by Robert Chewning, Esq.

construction-machine-3412240__340-300x202 The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently reviewed the signature requirements for filing a construction lien claim prior to and after the 2011 amendments to New Jersey’s Construction Lien Law. Our construction attorneys represent contractors in construction law matters including but not limited to filing and/or defending against construction lien claims under New Jersey’s Construction Lien Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:44a-1, et seq.

The Court’s review was in Diamond Beach, LLC v. March Associates, Inc., decided in December 2018. The Court was required to review the signatory requirements “pre” and “post” Construction Lien Law amendments, and determine whether the amendments should retroactively apply to previously filed construction liens. Prior to the 2011 Construction Lien Law amendments, N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-6 required that a lien claim be signed, acknowledged, and verified by “a partner or duly authorized officer” of the partnership or organization. The 2011 Construction Lien Law amendments dropped the requirement that the lien claim be signed by a “duly authorized officer” and instead required that the lien claim comply with the N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-8 claim form which requires that a “officer/member” sign the form.

While the amendment may have lowered the filing requirements, the Court found that the 2011 changes to the signatory requirements do not retroactively apply to the lien at issue, which was filed prior to the 2011 amendments, because the amendments did not expressly state that they were retroactive. Further, the Court found that the amendments were not “curative” because there was no evidence that they were made to “cure” a previous misinterpretation of the law. Diamond Beach, LLC v. March Associates, Inc., 457 N.J. Super. 265, 277–78 (App. Div. 2018).

Published on: June 3, 2017

The Relationship Between the New Jersey Construction Lien and Federal Bankruptcy Law

by Robert Chewning, Esq.

worried-30148__340-217x300 In the case of In re Linear Electric Company, Inc., the Third Circuit was presented with whether construction liens filed by a supplier under New Jersey law were valid and enforceable against a contractor who filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection prior to when the construction liens were filed.

New Jersey’s Construction Lien Law, N.J.S.A. §2A:44A, et seq., provides contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers with the right of filing a lien for work, services, or materials provided pursuant to a written contract. These protections are limited based on several factors including but not limited to whether the person or entity filing the construction lien is defined as a “claimant” under New Jersey’s Construction Lien law, what the unpaid portions of the contract price is, and compliance with strict time restrictions for filing the lien itself and a subsequent lawsuit based on the lien.

Under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, a debtor who files for bankruptcy is afforded the relief of an automatic stay that prevents most collection actions from continuing including acts to create, perfect, or enforce liens against property. The protections of an automatic stay are broad and expansive but do include several expectations and limitations for certain debts.