In any suit brought under the provisions of § 43-22, the owner of the building and premises to which the lien, or liens, sought to be enforced shall have attached, the general contractor for such building or other parties in interest may, after five days' notice to the lienor, or lienors, apply to the court in which such suit shall be pending, or to the judge thereof in vacation, for permission to pay into court an amount of money sufficient to discharge such lien, or liens, and the costs of the suit or for permission to file a bond in the penalty of double the amount of such lien, or liens, and costs, with surety to be approved by the court, or judge, conditioned for the payment of such judgment adjudicating the lien or liens to be valid and determining the amount for which the same would have been enforceable against the real estate as may be rendered by the court upon the hearing of the case on its merits, which permission shall be granted by the court, or judge, in either such case, unless good cause be shown against the same by some party in interest.
Upon the payment of such money into court, or upon the filing of such bond, as the case may be, after the court has granted permission for the same to be done, the property affected thereby shall stand released from such lien, or liens, and the money so paid in, or the bond so filed, as the case may be, shall be subject to the final judgment of the court upon the hearing of the case on its merits.
1936, p. 492; Michie Code 1942, § 6437a; 1962, c. 166; 1976, c. 388; 1992, c. 532.
Notes of Decisions
York Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. William A. Hazel, Inc., 506 S.E.2d 315 (Va. 1998).
· cites it 8× “In this mechanic’s lien enforcement suit, we decide whether the holder of a mechanic’s hen that is “bonded off” pursuant to Code § 43-70 must still establish the priority of the hen.”
Am. Bank v. Wadsworth Golf Constr. Co., 307 P.3d 1212 (Idaho 2013).
“The Virginia statute provides that recovery on a lien release bond is limited to “the amount for which the same would have been enforceable against the real estate____” Va.Code Ann. § 43-70. This differs from Idaho’s provision that limits recovery to “such amount as a court of…”
VNB Mortg. Corp. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 209 S.E.2d 909 (Va. 1974).
· cites it 2× “During the pendency of these suits VNB proceeded to have the trustees foreclose and sell the properties at public auction under the *368 deeds of trust, posting surety bonds under Code §§ 43-70 and -71 (Repl. Vol. 1970) to clear the titles of mechanics’ liens.”
Ivy Constr. Co. v. Booth, 309 S.E.2d 300 (Va. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The owners filed a bond pursuant to Code § 43-70, causing the real property to be released from the lien, whereupon they were dismissed as defendants.”
Moore & Moore Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Basepoint, Inc., 485 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Subsequently, by order, the property was released from the lien upon the filing of an appropriate bond as provided by Code § 43-70. The owner then was dismissed from the suit.”
Synchronized Constr. Servs. v. Prav Lodging (Va. 2014).
· cites it 17× “80 in accordance with Code § 43-70. The circuit court granted that application, thereby releasing the real estate which had been subject to Synchronized's mechanic's lien.”
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Norair Eng'g Corp., 86 Va. Cir. 138 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2013).
“for permission to make such payment into court, or to file such bond, as prescribed in § 43-70.. .. Upon the granting of such permission, and the payment of such money into court, or the filing of such bond, as the case may be, the property affected thereby shall stand released…”
Hunt v. Eastbridge Elec., Inc., 20 Va. Cir. 43 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 8× “00 pursuant to § 43-70 to be held "subject to the final judgment of this Court upon hearing of the case on the merits and with respect to the validity and amount of" Hunt’s mechanic’s liens.”
MOORE & MOORE v. Basepoint, 485 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Subsequently, by order, the property was released from the lien upon the filing of an appropriate bond as provided by Code § 43-70. The owner then was dismissed from the suit.”
Harris v. CMANE Beaumeade Ltd. P'ship, 20 Va. Cir. 376 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 4× “The Amended Petition fails to allege facts upon which relief can be granted against CMANE, as the owner, and Harvey-Cleary, as the general contractor, because the lien was released "pursuant to Va. Code § 43-70" and Harris must look to the bond for any claim herein.”
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.