Lingate Lane Mutual Water Company vs Joshua D Travis

Case Number

24CV07104

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Release of Mechanic's Lien

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons further discussed herein, the hearing on the petition of Lingate Lane Mutual Water Company for an order releasing mechanics lien is continued to February 7, 2025. On or before January 24, 2025, petitioner shall file and properly serve a verified amended petition in accordance with this ruling. Petitioner is directed to give notice of the Court’s ruling herein.

Background:

On December 16, 2024, petitioner Lingate Lane Mutual Water Company (Lingate) filed a verified petition (the petition) for an order to release property owned by Lingate and located at 1523 Monte Vista Road in Santa Barbara, California (the property) from a claim of mechanics lien (the lien) recorded on March 15, 2024, by respondent Joshua D. Travis dba JTC Construction (Travis). As alleged in the petition:

On October 5, 2023, Lingate and Travis, who is a licensed contractor, entered into a contract for the repair of a concrete slab and water well on the property. (Pet., ¶¶ 2-3.) A dispute arose regarding the quality of, and a purported failure by Travis to timely remedy defects in, the workmanship. (Id. at ¶ 5.) As a result of the untimely and defective work of Travis, Lingate sent a notice of termination of contractual obligations to Travis on February 26, 2024. (Ibid.)

On March 15, 2024, Travis, who maintained that Lingate owed him money under the contract, recorded the lien against the property in the official records of the County of Santa Barbara as document number 2024-0007776. (Id. at ¶ 7 & Exh. B.)

On June 13, 2024, Lingate and Travis entered into a settlement agreement under which Travis agreed to release all present and future claims arising out of the contract in exchange for Lingate’s payment to Travis. (Pet., ¶ 8.) In accordance with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, Lingate remitted payment of the settlement amount to Travis who, upon receipt of that payment, was obligated to release all claims against Lingate arising out of the contract. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

Travis failed to initiate legal action to foreclose on the lien within 90 days of recordation. (Pet., ¶ 10.) On July 30, 2024, Lingate sent to Travis a “Demand For Release Of Claim Of Lien” (the demand), demanding that Travis execute and record a release of the lien. (Id. at ¶ 11 & Exh. C.) Travis failed to execute, and Lingate has been unable to obtain, a release of the lien. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Court records reflect that on December 26, 2024, Lingate filed a notice (the notice of hearing) stating that the petition will be heard on January 10, 2025, and that on December 18, 2024, a file-stamped copy of the petition was served by Lingate on Travis at the following address: 6606 Stagecoach Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105. (See Dec. 26, 2024, Notice.)

Travis has not filed an opposition or other response to the petition.

 

Analysis:

Relevant under the circumstances alleged in the petition as further detailed above, and subject to exceptions which do not appear to be present here, a person who records a claim of lien under the provisions of Civil Code section 8400 et seq., must commence an action to enforce that lien within 90 days after recordation of the claim. (Civ. Code, § 8460, subd. (a).) (Note: Undesignated code references herein shall be to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated.) “If the claimant does not commence an action to enforce the lien within that time, the claim of lien expires and is unenforceable.” (Ibid.; see also Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070.)

To the extent a lien claimant fails to commence an action to enforce the lien within the time provided in section 8460, the owner of the property subject to the claim of lien “may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien ….” (Civ. Code, § 8480, subd. (a).) At least 10 days before filing a petition for an order to release property from a claim of lien, the property owner must give to the lien claimant “notice demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the claim of lien.” (Civ. Code, § 8482.) The notice must comply with the requirements of section 8100 et seq. and must “state the grounds for the demand.” (Ibid.)

A petition filed under section 8480 must be verified, and must allege all of the matters set forth in section 8484, subdivisions (a) through (h). (Civ. Code, § 8484.) The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition and a notice of hearing on the lien claimant at least 15 days prior to the hearing, “in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the claimant as provided in Section 8108.” (Civ. Code, § 8486, subds. (a)-(b) [also noting that service by mail is complete “on the fifth day following deposit of the petition and notice in the mail”].)

The petitioner bears the initial burden to produce evidence on the petition and “the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of” section 8480 et seq., which are “deemed controverted by the claimant.” (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (a).) “The claimant has the burden of proof as to the validity of the lien.” (Ibid.) “If judgment is in favor of the petitioner, the court shall order the property released from the claim of lien.” (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (b).) The party prevailing on the petition is also entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (c).)

The undisputed information and evidence presented by Lingate indicates that Travis did not file an action to enforce the lien within 90 days of March 15, 2024, the date on which the lien was recorded as further detailed above. To the extent Travis failed to file an action to enforce the lien within the time prescribed in section 8460, the lien is unenforceable and the present petition is authorized under subdivision (a) of section 8480.

The proof of service attached to the notice of hearing indicates that copies of the petition and the notice of hearing were served on Travis on December 18, 2024, by prepaid certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to Travis at the address shown on the lien. As service of the petition and notice of hearing on Travis in the manner described in the petition was complete on December 23, 2024, Lingate has for present purposes, sufficiently demonstrated compliance with section 8486, subdivision (b). (See Civ. Code, § 8486, subd. (c).)  

The petition is verified, and alleges: the date and the county in which the lien was recorded; the document number of the place in the official records where the lien was recorded; the legal description of the property subject to the lien; that no extension of credit has been granted under section 8460; that Lingate gave notice to Travis under section 8482 by sending the demand requesting Travis execute and record a release of the lien; that Travis has refused to execute a release of the lien; that Lingate is unaware of any pending action to enforce the lien; that Travis has not filed for bankruptcy; and that there are no other restraints that would have prevented Travis from initiating an action to enforce the lien. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 7, 11-15 & Exhs. A-C.)

Based on the allegations of the petition further described above, the Court finds that the petition sufficiently alleges the matters set forth in section 8484, subdivisions (a) through (g). However, though the allegations of the petition suggest that Lingate has not filed for relief in bankruptcy, Lingate fails to include this mandatory allegation as required under subdivision (h) of section 8484. (See, e.g., Pioneer Construction, Inc. v. Global Investment Corp. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 161, 167-168 [90 day period to file an action to foreclose a mechanics lien was tolled during pendency of property owner’s bankruptcy].)

Information and evidence presented in the petition also shows that on July 30, 2024, more than 10 days before filing the petition, Lingate gave the demand to Travis as required under section 8482. The grounds stated in the demand include that “that the time for foreclosure on the mechanics lien has expired”, that Travis is “obligated to release the lien and clear the title to the property”, that Travis “released the claim of lien and other rights pursuant to a June 13, 2024 Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims”, and that Travis has “refused to release the lien after numerous emails, texts, and telephone messages” from the office of counsel of record for Lingate. (Pet., Exh. C.) The Court finds that Lingate has sufficiently stated the grounds for the demand attached to the petition as exhibit C.

The demand attached to the petition as exhibit C is made in writing, describes Lingate’s relationship to Travis who Lingate ostensibly hired directly to perform work at the property, states the name and address of Travis and of Lingate as the owner of the property, states the address where Travis performed the work, and includes a general statement of the work provided by Travis to Lingate pursuant to the contract described in the petition. The Court finds that the demand complies or substantially complies with sections 8100 and 8102, subdivision (a). (See Civ. Code, § 8482.)

Though information appearing in the demand indicates that it was given to Travis at the address shown in the lien (Civ. Code, § 8108, subd. (e),) the Court is unable to determine from the allegations of the petition, the manner in which the demand was given to Travis. (See Pet., ¶ 11 [alleging that the demand was “sent” to Travis] & Exh. C; Civ. Code, §§ 8106 [prescribing manner in which notice must be given], 8110 [manner in which notice by mail must be given].) For these reasons, the petition also fails to include facts sufficient to permit the Court to determine when the notice required under section 8486 was complete. (See Civ. Code, § 8116.) Lingate also has not included with the petition a sufficient proof of notice declaration as required under section 8118, or alleged facts demonstrating an exception to these requirements. For these reasons, the Court presently is unable to determine whether the demand was given to Travis in full compliance with section 8482.

The petition must plead each fact essential to the relief sought by Lingate under section 8480 et seq., including the matters set forth in the mandatory provisions of sections 8100 et seq., 8482, and 8482 which, as further discussed above, are deemed controverted by Travis. (Green v. Grimes-Stassforth Stationery Co. (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 52, 56.) Because Lingate has, for all reasons discussed above, failed to allege facts essential to the relief sought by Lingate under section 8480 et seq., Lingate has failed to meet its initial burden to show compliance with all service and other requirements set forth in section 8480 et seq.

Though the petition in some respects substantially complies with applicable code requirements as more fully discussed above, the Court will continue the hearing on the petition to February 7, 2025. On or before January 24, 2025, Lingate shall file and properly serve an amended petition curing the deficiencies discussed herein, and any other deficiencies that may exist which are not addressed herein. Any amended petition filed by Lingate must plead each fact essential to the order sought by Lingate. To the extent Lingate fails to file or properly serve an amended petition in accordance with this ruling, the Court will deny the present petition.