(a) Upon the hearing held on the application or motion set forth in section
49-35a, the lienor shall first be required to establish that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of his lien. Any person entitled to notice under section
49-35a may appear, be heard and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the validity of the lien should not be sustained or the amount of the lien claimed is excessive and should be reduced.
(b) Upon consideration of the facts before it, the court or judge may: (1) Deny the application or motion if probable cause to sustain the validity of the lien is established; or (2) order the lien discharged if (A) probable cause to sustain its validity is not established, or (B) by clear and convincing evidence its invalidity is established; or (3) reduce the amount of the lien if the amount is found to be excessive by clear and convincing evidence; or (4) order the lien discharged or reduce the amount of the lien conditioned upon the posting of a bond, with surety, in a sum deemed sufficient by the judge to indemnify the lienor for any damage which may occur by the discharge or the reduction of amount.
(P.A. 75-418, S. 5, 10; P.A. 76-290, S. 4, 6; P.A. 79-602, S. 90.)
History: P.A. 76-290 added Subsec. (b)(4) authorizing court to discharge or reduce lien upon posting of bond with surety sufficient to indemnify lien or for damage which may occur; P.A. 79-602 rephrased provisions to replace “such” where appearing.
Cited. 180 C. 501. Challenge by general contractor to constitutionality of mechanic's lien statutes discussed. 185 C. 583. Cited. 188 C. 253; 209 C. 185; 224 C. 29; 235 C. 595.
Cited. 5 CA 106; 6 CA 180; Id., 443; 9 CA 682; 15 CA 633; 27 CA 199; 41 CA 737. Trial court did not improperly discharge a lien under section without first holding required hearing because, despite defendant's earlier filing for a continuance, defendant failed to appear at the hearing and forfeited his rights against plaintiff. 54 CA 355. Trial court properly discharged lien, even though it did not specifically state the standard of proof it applied, since trial court's actions and duties are presumed to have been performed in conformity with the law unless it appears to the contrary. 61 CA 156. Nothing prevents a discharge order from being superseded by another discharge order made during a subsequent proceeding in the same case. 86 CA 692.
Cited. 33 CS 552.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
Stuart v. Stuart, 996 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2010).
Stuart v. Stuart, 996 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “al Statutes § 45a-699 (b) (court may grant application for sterilization of person under guardianship or conservatorship only when it finds by clear and convincing evidence that such operation or procedure is in that person’s best interests); General Statutes § 46b-160 (a) (4)…”
Lichtman v. Beni, 905 A.2d 647 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 8× “See General Statutes § 49-35b (c). Finally, § 49-35c (d) provides that any order of discharge, reduction or stay shall take effect upon the recording of a certified copy thereof in the appropriate land records.”
Lucien v. McCormick Constr., LLC, 998 A.2d 250 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 7× “1 On or about September 10, 2008, the plaintiff made an application to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-35a, 2 alleging that there was not probable cause to sustain the validity of the lien and seeking an order for the discharge of the lien pursuant to…”
Newtown Assocs. v. Ne. Structures, Inc., 546 A.2d 310 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 49-35b (a) 2 provides that before a lien can be upheld the lienor must establish probable cause to sustain the validity of the lien.”
Santa Fuel, Inc. v. Varga, 823 A.2d 1249 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 49-35b (a) provides in relevant part: “Upon the hearing held on the .”
Rutka v. City of Meriden, 75 A.3d 722 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” Accordingly, we turn to those sections of the General Statutes that govern the discharge of municipal hens to determine the defendant’s burden to sustain the property maintenance hens on the plaintiffs property.”
New England Sav. Bank v. Meadow Lakes Realty Co., 668 A.2d 712 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 8× “See General Statutes § 49-35b (b). This pretrial procedure allows for a prompt and relatively inexpensive pretrial determination of the validity of a mechanic’s hen prior to the trial of a foreclosure action.”
Johnson v. De Toledo, 763 A.2d 28 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 4× “The homeowners, therefore, are entitled to a credit against their contract with Basli for the $17,500 paid to the mason contractor to construct the patio and the retaining wall. II The plaintiff next claims that the court improperly discharged the mechanic’s lien after…”
Rollar Constr. & Demolition, Inc. v. Granite Rock Assocs., LLC, 891 A.2d 133 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” The plaintiff further argues that the court improperly failed to require the Gretchyns to provide clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiffs mechanic’s lien was invalid under General Statutes § 49-35b. Reliance on that statute is misplaced because it expressly applies…”
Mangiafico v. Town of Farmington, 163 A.3d 689 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Although the plaintiff claimed that General Statutes § 49-35b required the town to show that it had probable cause to sustain the validity of their liens, the trial court determined, and we agree, that § 49-35b pertains to mechanics' liens and is not applicable under these…”
Pero Bldg. Co. v. Smith, 504 A.2d 524 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 2× “” The probable cause standard embodied in the statute is analogous to that provided in the statutory provisions relating to prejudgment remedies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.