lien claim in Washington

2006W.R.P., 85 Wash.App. at 753 , 934 P.2d 722 . ¶ 26 Because the construction of RCW 60.04.091 presented a debatable issue of law, the trial court erred in concluding that the lien claim was frivolous and without reasonable cause for failure to comply with the statute.

2006W.R.P., 85 Wash.App. at 753 , 934 P.2d 722 . ¶ 26 Because the construction of RCW 60.04.091 presented a debatable issue of law, the trial court erred in concluding that the lien claim was frivolous and without reasonable cause for failure to comply with the statute.

2019Deacon, 150 Wn.

2011Deacon, 150 Wn.

1909Such an effort by the property owner to pay taxes is the legal equivalent of payment, in so far as to discharge the lien and bar a sale for nonpayment.” This decision followed the case of Bullock v. Wallace, 47 Wash. 690 , 92 Pac. 675 , wherein the court quoted with approval from 27 Am. & Eng.

1909Such an effort by the property owner to pay taxes is the legal equivalent of payment, in so far as to discharge the lien and bar a sale for nonpayment.” This decision followed the case of Bullock v. Wallace, 47 Wash. 690 , 92 Pac. 675 , wherein the court quoted with approval from 27 Am. & Eng.

2015App. 625 , 632 -33, 65 P. 3d 11 ( 2003).

2015App. 625, 632-33 , 65 P.3d 11 (2003).

2015App. at 449 . 20 No. 42845 -8 -II Consolidated wi No. 44995 -1 - II In Geo Exchange Systems, LLC v. Cam, we held that the expiration of an original lien claim did not foreclose the lien holder from filing a second lien for the same amounts originally claimed. 115 Wn.

2015App. at 449 . ¶49 In Geo Exchange Systems, LLC v. Cam, we held that the expiration of an original lien claim did not foreclose the lienholder from filing a second lien for the same amounts originally claimed. 115 Wn.

2010The Williamses respond that the acknowledgment signed by Rebecca Southern in her individual capacity does not substantially comply with RCW 60.04.091 because LienData was Athletic's agent and, as a corporation, LienData must acknowledge the claim of lien using the corporate form. ¶ 18 The Williamses cite Ben Holt Industries, Inc. v. Milne to support their argument that the acknowledgment was defective. 36 Wash.App. 468 , 675 P.2d 1256 (1984).

2010The Williamses respond that the acknowledgment signed by Rebecca Southern in her individual capacity does not substantially comply with RCW 60.04.091 because LienData was Athletic’s agent and, as a corporation, LienData must acknowledge the claim of lien using the corporate form. ¶18 The Williamses cite Ben Holt Industries, Inc. v. Milne to support their argument that the acknowledgment was defective. 36 Wn.

2006Co. v. Olympic Boulevard Partners, 109 Wash.App. 286, 290 , 34 P.3d 1250 (2001). ¶ 19 It is clear under our case law that a lien claim is invalid absent evidence that the claimant attested to its validity.

2006App. 286, 290 , 34 P.3d 1250 (2001). ¶19 It is clear under our case law that a lien claim is invalid absent evidence that the claimant attested to its validity.

2003RCW 60.04.141. 2 This eight-month period is considered “a statute of limitations upon the duration of a mechanics’ lien.” Curtis Lumber Co. v. Sortor, 83 Wn.2d 764, 767 , 522 P.2d 822 (1974). 3 Thus, if an action is not filed within eight months, the right to recover on this recorded lien expires.

2003RCW 60.04.141. 2 This eight-month period is considered “a statute of limitations upon the duration of a mechanics’ lien.” Curtis Lumber Co. v. Sortor, 83 Wn.2d 764, 767 , 522 P.2d 822 (1974). 3 Thus, if an action is not filed within eight months, the right to recover on this recorded lien expires.

1932Law (2d ed.), p. 755: “ ‘If the owner of land, or a party having an interest therein, in good faith applies to the proper officer for the purpose of paying the tax thereon, and payment is prevented by the mistake or fault of such officer, . . . the attempt to pay is considered, in most jur *666 isdictions, as the legal equivalent of payment in so far as to discharge the lien and bar a sale for payment;’ and said: “ ‘The facts, we think, require the holding that the foreclosure was unauthorized in law, that the sale and deed thereunder were void, and that appellant was not divested of her title

1932Law (2d ed.), p. 755: “ ‘If the owner of land, or a party having an interest therein, in good faith applies to the proper officer for the purpose of paying the tax thereon, and payment is prevented by the mistake or fault of such officer, . . . the attempt to pay is considered, in most jur *666 isdictions, as the legal equivalent of payment in so far as to discharge the lien and bar a sale for payment;’ and said: “ ‘The facts, we think, require the holding that the foreclosure was unauthorized in law, that the sale and deed thereunder were void, and that appellant was not divested of her title

2025“Although a lien claim specifying the condominium character of the property would have been preferable, the legal description used by the materialmen in this case is sufficient to protect and perfect their right to a lien on the condominium units.” Id. at 343-44 .

2019We did not rule on the merits of Waid's lien claim but, rather, remanded the matter "for a determination of what amount, if any, of the funds remaining in the court registry are rightfully Waid's." Ferguson, 178 Wn.

2019Upon learning of Teller's receipt of the remaining funds in the registry, Waid filed a motion requesting that the trial court order Ferguson to return the funds 15 No. 74512-3-1/16 Waid's lien could attach, the lien claim was moot.13 See Ferguson, 178 Wn.

2011Schumacher, 69 Wash.App. at 700 , 850 P.2d 1361 . ¶ 33 Schumacher was decided under a predecessor statute that required service of notice upon all "necessary parties," while the current statute simply requires service upon the "owner." Still, there is no question that the current deadline for service "upon the owner" must be strictly enforced and without *300 such service, the lien no longer binds the property. ¶ 34 Analogizing to Schumacher, Junior argues that Diversified allowed itself to be misled by appearances and the similarity of names into believing that he was the record owner of the

2011Schumacher, 69 Wash.App. at 700 , 850 P.2d 1361 . ¶ 33 Schumacher was decided under a predecessor statute that required service of notice upon all "necessary parties," while the current statute simply requires service upon the "owner." Still, there is no question that the current deadline for service "upon the owner" must be strictly enforced and without *300 such service, the lien no longer binds the property. ¶ 34 Analogizing to Schumacher, Junior argues that Diversified allowed itself to be misled by appearances and the similarity of names into believing that he was the record owner of the

2011Deacon, 150 Wash.App. at 89 , 206 P.3d 689 .

2006Co. v. Olympic Boulevard Partners, 109 Wash.App. 286, 290 , 34 P.3d 1250 (2001). ¶ 19 It is clear under our case law that a lien claim is invalid absent evidence that the claimant attested to its validity.

2006See Lumberman's, Inc., 89 Wash.App. 283 , 949 P.2d 382 (lien claim invalid where the claimant signed the lien notice but failed to sign the attestation clause); Flag Constr., 109 Wash.App. 286 , 34 P.3d 1250 (lien claim invalid where claimant signed the lien, a notary signed the verification, but the claimant did not sign the verification); compare with Fircrest Supply, Inc. v. Plummer, 30 Wash.App. 384 , 634 P.2d 891 (1981) (lien claim substantially complied with RCW 60.04.091 although the claimant did not sign the lien because the notary's signature following the claimant's typed name indica

1997If the court determines that the lien is not frivolous and was made with reasonable cause, and is not clearly excessive, the court shall issue an order so stating and awarding costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the lien claimant to be paid by the applicant. "(5) Proceedings under this section shall not affect other rights and remedies available to the parties under this chapter or otherwise.” 2 Clerk’s Papers, at 44. 3 See RCW 60.04.031(1) (requiring notice of right to claim lien before filing unless certain exceptions apply, including contracting with the owner); RCW 18.27.114(1) (requir

1991Scottsdale, 759 P.2d at 611 .

1991The 1975 amendments created "specific rules for filing and service which must be followed in order to preserve a lien claim." Queen Anne Painting Co. v. Olney & Assocs., Inc., 57 Wn.

1991App. 389, 395 , 788 P.2d 580 (1990). "[T]he holding in Curtis, that a lien foreclosure action is not a special proceeding within the scope of CR 81, is no longer applicable in light of the 1975 amendments to RCW 60.04.100." Queen Anne Painting, at 395.

1990"A lien is an encumbrance which one person has upon the property of another as a security for some debt or charge." Swanson v. Graham, 27 Wn.2d 590, 597 , 179 P.2d 288 (1947).

1990"A lien is an encumbrance which one person has upon the property of another as a security for some debt or charge." Swanson v. Graham, 27 Wn.2d 590, 597 , 179 P.2d 288 (1947).

1985Moritzky contends the counterclaim was a separate action, and the trial court correctly awarded attorney fees in the manner described above, citing Johnson v. *183 Thompson Constr., 1 Wn.

1981Both sides have called to our attention Dorsey v. Brunswick Corp., 69 Wn.2d 511 , 418 P.2d 732 (1966), in which the court held that the affidavit of good faith on a chattel mortgage was invalid for lack of the mortgagor's signature.

1981Both sides have called to our attention Dorsey v. Brunswick Corp., 69 Wn.2d 511 , 418 P.2d 732 (1966), in which the court held that the affidavit of good faith on a chattel mortgage was invalid for lack of the mortgagor's signature.