This an extremely loose interpretation of the Lien Law, and such a reading allows for a creative role for judges. But the Court makes its statement in this case by finding that the letter of the law should be guided by the spirit and intent of the legislature in passing the law. The Court also ignored the fact that the Thomas Group filed its lien claim for an amount that was more than the value to which it was entitled under the contract at the time it was filed. Essentially, contractors may be able to file lien claims at the wrong time, and for the wrong amount, as long as the Court does not detect malice or fraud. The Court refuses to allow the intent of the law to be bogged down by technicalities.
Policy calls for a certain level of leniency in protecting the rights of contractors.
These liberties taken in the Thomas Group ruling establish the policy that the Supreme Court believes should govern Construction Lien Law cases. The decision will compel lower courts throughout the state to look to the intent of the Construction Lien Law of 1994. The message is clear. Lien Law cases need to be decided with the interests of contractors in mind. It now may be easier for contractors to file and enforce liens.