Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 254, § 11 (2026)

Action to enforce lien; time to commence; validity of lien

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 11. The lien shall be dissolved unless a civil action to enforce it is commenced within ninety days after the filing of the statement required by section eight. The validity of the lien shall not be affected by an inaccuracy in the description of the property to which it attaches, if the description is sufficient to identify the property, or by an inaccuracy in stating the amount due for labor or material or professional services unless it is shown that the person filing the statement has wilfully and knowingly claimed more than is due him.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Mullen Lumber Co. v. Lore, 537 N.E.2d 123 (Mass. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mullen Lumber Co. v. Lore, 537 N.E.2d 123 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 10× “" G.L.c. 254, § 11 (1986 ed.). Lore next contends that the only statement of account acceptable under § 8 is a filing made within the thirty days after the contract completion date specified in the notice of contract filed under § 4.”

Nat'l Lumber Co. v. LeFrancois Constr. Corp., 723 N.E.2d 10 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 8× “Specifically, we must decide whether the statute requires that an owner who acquires title after the recording of the notice of contract be named as a defendant in an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien within the statutory period required by G.”

Golden v. Gen. Builders Supply LLC, 807 N.E.2d 822 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 5× “The defendant, General Builders Supply LLC (General Builders), sought to enforce its mechanic’s lien by way of a counterclaim filed four weeks after the deadline set forth in *653 G. L. c. 254, § 11, asking that it “relate back” to the filing of Golden’s complaint, which had…”

Nat'l Lumber Co. v. United Cas. & Sur. Ins., 802 N.E.2d 82 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “National Lumber brought an action to enforce its mechanic’s lien against the Schwartzes, and in National Lumber /, we held that it could validly enforce the lien against them, even though they were not named as defendants until after the expiration of the statutory deadline, see…”

NES Rentals v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc., 992 N.E.2d 291 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 3× “Under § 4 of the mechanic’s lien statute, a subcontractor furnishing rental equipment for use on land may record a lien on that property, but under G. L. c. 254, § 11, as amended through St.”

Trace Constr., Inc. v. Dana Barros Sports Complex, LLC, 945 N.E.2d 833 (Mass. 2011). “See G. L. c. 254, § 11. There is no dispute that the contractors and subcontractors have made the appropriate filings for creating a mechanic’s lien.”

John Marini Mgmt. Co. v. Butler, 873 N.E.2d 1150 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 254, § 11. Marini claims that Stone’s appeal has been rendered moot by its failure to file such an enforcement action as a compulsory counterclaim in Marini’s action to dissolve the lien.”

Baybank Middlesex v. Elec. Fabricators, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 304 (D. Mass. 1990). “Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 254, § 11 (West 1982).”

Ne. Glass, Inc. v. Alpen, Inc. (In Re Ne. Glass, Inc.), 112 B.R. 475 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1990). “The Defendant has also commenced state court litigation against the Owners and the General Contractor to enforce and preserve its lien 1 against the real estate, as G.L. c. 254, § 11 requires. “Due to the competing claims between the [Debtor] and the Defendant,” 2 the General…”

Blount Bros. v. Mondev Mass., Inc., 491 N.E.2d 640 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “G. L. c. 254, § 11. Lack of timely compliance with this requirement also results in dissolution of the lien.”

J.T. Haffey Builders, Inc. v. Carey, 27 Mass. L. Rptr. 48 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2010). “) The Court further finds that Haffey satisfied the requirements of G.L.c. 254, §11 by commencing an action within ninely days after filing the statement required by §8.”

Bruno v. All. Rental Grp., LLC (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “254, § 4; (2) Alliance willfully and knowingly claimed amounts more than what was due, see G. L. c. 254, § 11; and (3) there was no amount due or to become due from Bruno to Ivester under the original contract at the time Alliance's notices of contract were filed and Bruno had…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

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.