an act because it recorded its sub contractors lien claim before serving it the issue on appeal is whether the act required metate go to serve notice before it recorded its own claim when it complied with all other requirements to enforce its line because section twenty eight does not require the notice to preceded the recording of the lien the trial cour this morning at any time after making his or her contract with the contractor close quote serve notice and shall do so with a ninety days the completion of the work section twenty eight addresses enforcement it is written in the destructive it states that a claim or suit may be filed ten days after notice if payment has not been made  tale satisfied section twenty eight by filing suit against the owner and the general contractor jointly more than ten days after serving the requisite notice tech loose interpretation  is now a basis for invalidating the wording in this case section twenty four that nat tie the timing of the notice to the recording of the room or to the filing of suit but only to the completion of the work section twenty four doesn't even refer to those other events section twenty eight does nat condition the enforcement of lien rights and the owner receiving the notice ten days before the loan is reported section twenty eight dollars uses the word quote or close quote to separate different alternatives the filing of a claim or suing is payment is not received ten days after notice a claimant may file a claim for me alternatively if payment is not made ten dollars days after notice it claimant quote may sue the owner and the contractor jointly close quote for the amount due and circuit court learns argument that its interpretation is supported by the two thousand and six amendment to section from the holding an a why mcdonald requiring the client to wait ten days after serving notice before recording the moon and filing the complaint we in one place from section twenty eight before and after the two thousand and eight amendment the means of enforcing the claimants when rights should be interpreted separately and independently read in the disjunctive as written payment is not received ten days after notice claimant may file a claim for lien payments is not made ten days after notice a claim is made to the owner and contractor jointly as happened questions i do not actually have any questions thank you bridget yes i do console doesn't section twenty four and twenty eight of the post timing requirements for a notice for recording the lead that differs from the filing of the suit well section twenty four does not refer to the filing of the suit or the recording going it simply says notice is within ninety days of completion of the work we complied with  twenty eight dollars has two different alternatives under want to alternative after ten days when payment is not made tail could within four months file a claim of l or a suit that's one alternative but another alternative within a four month period as happened here we could and did report t but after four months and certainly after the ten day period we could and did while the suit within two years of the completion of the work so the timing is all tied to the completion of the work the timing is not relative to these different events as long as you give your notice in ninety days you record the warning within four months and you file the suit within two years complied with the statute but there is no timing requirement that makes the notice relative to both for response yes i just want to conclude them by saying that for all the recent supports in our brief we ask you to reverse and remand for further proceedings on count one thank you for the opportunity to give an oral argument to counsel are you ready to proceed yes i am when you're ready thank you may please the court st there was a fatal flaws it's just been repeated and i have to point out st the sub contractors are in different sections than the general contractors general contractors have for months sub contractors have three months every reference they've made to section seven deals with general contractors not sub contractors confuse the two sections of the statute ally that they have ninety days is the relevant time thing i can see they met three the general contractor is still in this case and the plaintiff i made that argument when we raised the issue is you know what has happened to playing the original three d general contractor because in order to proceed d under all of these to read he needs to be involved in the complaint they said three d still in the complaint in ca one of the four committed complaint in other words count one is still before the trial court waiting for a decision on behalf of three d does have an appearance on file they have not been a very willing participant below they have not been given notice of this appeal the nd sleight of hand is what i referenced in section se their complaint they complied with all the requirements of the general contractor and section seven are not the general contractor and they never alleged to be a general contractor they are relying on the general contractors really they don't have a sub contractors like it doesn't exist rd issue they raised in their reply period they want to use the recorded lane to satisfy that notice and section twenty four reference section twenty five to show that they the legislature knew the difference between recording a notice and using the recorders office as notice and given someone actual notice in section twenty five b specifically says the only time and they use the word all that you can use section twenty four dollars you can satisfy section twenty four dollars notice with the recording of the link is when the owner cannot be found that's not the case here that's never been before d actual complaint was filed when the word either is removed it has an impact or changing the the word from being either to  section twenty four notice requirements as i outlined it because they didn't serve us ten days in advance which is required in section twenty eight before the chiro meant laborers and sub contractors thousand and six when the legislature made the change and that all items are required that protects landowners and i understand that they're saying some contractors in general contractors general contractors the landowner knows that he signed a contract or with that person the owner absolutely knows who they are you know doesn't know who the sub patrick is his property shouldn't be lien for even gets to you know before he gets notices and that was the purpose was to protect owners who didn't know who the sub grant directors were and getting slandered their title slandered before they even had no it's not a huge endeavor to require them to send a letter to the owner and days before the record if they didn't do it here is required under the statute the court should uphold the lower so i have this question an awful lot of emphasis is being put on the deletion of the word either i'm not sure frankly that in my opinion that makes the statute ambiguous such that i shouldn't resort to legislative history but let's say for a moment that i do looking at the language the sponsor of the amendment that moves the word either and he seems to say that that this bill does not intend to make any significant substantive changes other than changes necessary to mcdonald i think they actually reversed and i don't think they were caught a fine because of it all i think somebody along the line decided to take it out and say we don't we want you to have to do this in either case the strange language for the sponsor to use just in case law if the intention is to reverse it wouldn't it would be except for it was a large change it what they had many other changes doesn't surprise me that they missed one in one place i think some are summarily overall the changes did exactly what set that doesn't mean every changed that that's not my i mean not that i'm an expert legislator you know when you read other things as many times that things get through the legislature with some nation on the on the legislative floor it's certainly not the final be all and end all of the legislative history and then finally just ask this  was did the business reside in the county where the work was done no but his corporate agent did that an alternative reason in the statues not only alternative like either it can but it can also reflect that if you're going to do one or the other you have to do st that the language that precedes it which is give the ten days not statute that is outside what was common law it was created as a way to solve some problems in the common law as i'm sure you are all aware and as a result it's because it's not the normal action you have a smaller area to do it again would you a sub contractor who was hired by general contractor that by the on one of the reasons why it's so important to the general contractor still be included in the l count so i have no further questions just a council i just i have one follow up about the legislative history here and again i'm not sure that removing the word either does make a how do we have no word that what basis would we use to say that that really isn't what they meant because the word either changed that that simple it does change  was speaking of an overall i rather like mr consul excuse me i appreciate that and i heard you when you answered that before but they took the word out and said by doing this we do not mean to make any substantive change how do we get around that i think in the end they still made a substantive change whether they meant to make this one i don't know but they did make a change right there now i have no additional questions thank you i don't always that i would hope that you would see fit to uphold the lower court thank you coun judgment against the three dimension it's a party but it was dismissed everybody was dismissed from count one and one we none suited count two that allowed talk a little bit about the deadline to get the statute is meant to be straightforward tech close not complaining that the notice wasn't served with the ninety days it was texas not complaining that the lien was improperly recorded within the time period it was tecla is not complaining that the suit wasn't filed within two years of the completion of the work it clearly was it admits that it received the notice and it hasn't said anything this morning about that notice being defective as a matter of substance its only argument is that the notice somehow has to purpose of the act is to permit a lien where the owner has received a benefit and the value or condition of the property increased or improved by the furnishing of labor and materials and this court has noted that the act discloses quote a manifest legislative intent to remove as far as practicable technical requirements as a material element of the right to enforce the interpretation of sections twenty four and twenty eight adopted in court at sales in a way mcdonald serves that for media purpose and should be followed here lets people very clear this case involved section twenty four  notice that section twenty five the owner of record listen tennessee and was served by certified mail in tennessee that allowed us to proceed under section twenty four as we did we complied with twenty four and we complied with twenty eight if there are any questions and shouldn't that agent had been served under the normal service process rather than for one someone resides outside of the county well i believe  justice brennan that we did comply by serving as an alternative the owner of record of side of the county and i think that was sufficient notice under the statute  construction is a necessary party so it's your position that they are still involved as a party in count one which is this appeal is that correct correct  nothing else pending in the trial court but yes we complied by suing them doing them jointly with the owner new procedure and i think the court for providing the facility for allowing the tail to be heard this morning thank you welcome thank you both for your exceptional arguments