“Timing is everything,” as the adage goes, especially in the realm of mechanic’s liens claims. The current incarnation of Pennsylvania’s Mechanic’s Lien Law, more specifically Section 1502, calls for filing within six months after the completion of the work. Hence, it should come as no surprise that fixing the completion date is integral in assessing the timeliness of a claim on preliminary objections. Despite the factual nuances of a recent Cumberland County residential dispute, a well-reasoned opinion just handed down by our Superior Court on December 18, 2012, is illustrative of an issue that might arise, namely how corrective efforts undertaken by a builder figure into such a completion analysis.
The facts in Neelu Enterprises v. Agarwal, 2012 PA Super. 276, No. 787 MDA 2012, are fairly straightforward. A husband and wife, Ashok and Asha Agarwal (the owners), engaged the services of a builder, Neelu Enterprises Inc. (the claimant), a few years back, the parties having entered into a lucrative new home construction contract; the agreement called for approximately $700,000 in payments for a home in Hampden Township, Pa. In December 2010, the consumers, apparently disenchanted with the builder’s efforts, elected to terminate its services and bring in their own subcontractors to finish the project. At that time, $585,000 already had been tendered toward the contract. Resultantly, a termination agreement was executed between the parties on December 8, 2010. Pursuant to that termination, the Agarwals remitted an additional $15,000 to Neelu, an amount apparently disbursed to Neelu’s subcontractors on the job. Critically, Neelu and other subcontractors were at the premises as late as January 7, 2011, “to observe and correct certain deficiencies,” according to the opinion.
