Lingate Lane Mutual Water Company vs Joshua D Travis

Case Number

24CV07104

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/07/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Release Order of Mechanic's Lien

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons further discussed herein, the amended petition of Lingate Lane Mutual Water Company for an order releasing mechanics lien is granted. Petitioner shall submit a corrected proposed order for the Court’s signature, and shall 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 releasing 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), which was recorded on March 15, 2024, by respondent Joshua D. Travis dba JTC Construction (Travis). As alleged in the petition:

On October 5, 2023, Lingate entered into a contract with Travis, a licensed contractor, for the repair of a concrete slab and water well on the property. (Pet., ¶¶ 2-3.) A dispute arose regarding defects in the workmanship of Travis which Travis failed to remedy. (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 parties’ contract, recorded the lien against the property as document number 2024-0007776 in the official records of the County of Santa Barbara. (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 made payment 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 an action to foreclose the lien within 90 days of its 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 did not file an opposition or other response to the petition.

On January 10, 2025, the Court entered a Minute Order (the Minute Order) reflecting the following ruling:

“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.”

Pursuant to the Minute Order, the Court continued the hearing on the petition to February 7, 2025, and directed Lingate to, on or before January 24, 2025, file and properly serve a verified amended petition in accordance with the ruling set forth above.

On January 10, 2025, Lingate filed a verified amended petition for release order of mechanic’s lien (the amended petition.) The amended petition includes the same allegations described above, and additional allegations further addressed below.

On January 13, 2025, Lingate filed an amended notice (the amended notice) of the continued hearing on the amended petition.

Information appearing in the declaration of Lingate’s counsel, Kevin R. Nimmons (Nimmons), filed on January 21, 2025, shows that on January 13, 2025, the amended notice, to which a copy of the amended petition was attached, was served on Travis by certified mail, return receipt requested, on January 13, 2025, at the address reflected in the lien and described above. (Nimmons Decl., ¶¶ 3-6 & Exh. 1.) Nimmons also includes information ostensibly to show why Travis cannot be personally served with documents filed in this action. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

On January 30, 2025, Lingate filed a supplemental Nimmons declaration, in which Nimmons states that Travis signed the return receipt confirming receipt of the amended notice and amended petition. (Supp. Nimmons Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. 3.)

Travis has not filed a response to the amended petition.

 Analysis:

For reasons further discussed in the Minute Order described above, Lingate has demonstrated that the lien is unenforceable and the petition is proper. (Civ. Code, § 8460, subd. (a); Civ. Code, § 8480, subd. (a); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070.) Lingate has also, for all reasons discussed above and in the Minute Order, sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the notice and service requirements set forth in Civil Code section 8484 and section 8486, subdivision (b). Further, the petition sufficiently alleges the matters set forth in Civil Code section 8484, subdivisions (a) through (g), and the demand attached to the petition and amended petition as exhibit C substantially complies with Civil Code sections 8100 and 8102, subdivision (a), including with respect to the grounds for the demand. (See Civ. Code, § 8482.)

As to the deficiencies further discussed above and in the Minute Order, the amended petition includes additional allegations showing that the demand was given to Travis by certified mail on July 16, 2024, and that Lingate confirmed that Travis received the demand on July 29, 2024. (Amended Pet., ¶ 11 & Exh. C.) These additional allegations are sufficient to show the manner in which notice was given to Travis by Lingate as required under Civil Code sections 8106 and 8110, and permit the Court to determine that the notice required under Civil Code section 8486 was complete. (See Civ. Code, § 8116.) Lingate has also included with the amended petition a sufficient proof of notice declaration as required under Civil Code section 8118. Therefore, the Court finds that the demand was given to Travis in compliance with Civil Code section 8482.

The amended petition also alleges that, based on a search of court dockets, Travis has not filed for bankruptcy, and there exist no other restraints that would have prevented Travis from commencing an action to enforce the lien. (Amended Pet., ¶ 15 & Exh. D.) These allegations are sufficient to show compliance with subdivision (h) of Civil Code section 8484.

Available information and evidence including matters appearing in the Nimmons declarations further described above also show that a copy of the amended petition and amended notice were properly served on Travis at least 15 days before the continued hearing. (Civ. Code, § 8486, subd. (b).)

For all reasons discussed above and in the Minute Order, the Court finds that Lingate has met its initial burden to produce evidence on the petition, and to plead each fact essential to the relief sought including “the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements” as required under Civil Code section 8480 et seq. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (a).) As the Court has no record of the filing of a response to the petition or amended petition by Travis showing the validity of the lien, the Court will grant the petition and amended petition, enter judgment in favor of Lingate, and order the property released from the lien. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (b).)

As the prevailing party in this action, Lingate is also entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (c).) The Nimmons declaration attached to the amended petition shows that Nimmons expended 2.2 hours in connection with this matter, at the hourly rate of $475. (Amended Pet., Nimmons Decl., ¶ 13.) In addition, paralegal Kimberly L. Stanley expended 10 hours in connection with this proceeding, at the hourly rate of $300. (Ibid.) Based on the hours expended by its counsel and counsel’s hourly rates, Lingate seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the total amount of $4,045. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Based on the undisputed evidence and information offered by Lingate to support its request for an award of attorney’s fees, and based on the Court’s own experience and knowledge regarding attorney’s fee issues, the Court finds that the hours spent by Lingate’s counsel in this action, and the hourly rates charged as further described above, are reasonable. (In re Tobacco Cases I (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 570, 587-588 [trial court may rely on its own experience and knowledge, when provided with pertinent facts, to determine reasonable value of attorney’s services].) Therefore, the Court will award Lingate prevailing party attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,045.

The Court will direct Lingate to submit a corrected proposed order which accurately reflects the Court’s ruling herein including with respect to the hearing dates of the present proceeding.