Source: http://fullertonlaw.com/mechanic-s-liens-in-pennsylvania
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:58:36+00:00

Document:
Pennsylvania has a fairly powerful mechanic’s lien statute. The mechanic’s lien has a high priority compared to many other liens on the property because it usually “relates back” to the time when work visibly commences. Generally, the mechanic’s lien for new construction will have priority over all liens on the property, except an acquisition loan or construction loan. In addition, lien rights for new construction will also survive any foreclosure or sale of the property, except foreclosure on an acquisition loan or construction loan.
Owners of projects costing more than over one and a half million dollars ($1,500,000) have the option of filing a Notice of Commencement of construction. If an owner files a Notice of Commencement, then all potential lien claimants that wish to preserve lien rights must file a Notice of Furnishing within 45 days after first supplying labor or material to the project.
The owner does not have an automatic “defense of payment” against mechanic’s liens on commercial projects in Pennsylvania. However, in most owner-occupied residential projects, the owner will have a defense of payment to a subcontractor lien if the owner has paid the general contractor in full. Any owner can also protect itself from paying for the project twice by recording a copy of the general contract with the court before any work is performed on the project.
General contractors can waive lien rights for lower tier subcontractors by filing a “Stipulation Against Liens” on most residential projects and on all projects if the general contractor posts a payment bond.
In Pennsylvania, lien rights extend to general contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors (contractors and suppliers who have a direct contract with subcontractors).
A notice of intent to lien to an owner is due 30 days before the Lien Claim is filed for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. For all claimants, the Lien Claim must be filed in court within six months of the claimant’s last work. Within one month after the initial claim filing, written notice of the filing of the lien must be served on the owner. An affidavit of service then must be filed with the court within 20 days after service of the written notice to the owner. After these requirements are met, however, no further action is necessary for two years. This usually means a contractor can inexpensively preserve rights.
or material, if the project cost is over one and a half million dollars ($1,500,000) and the owner has filed a Notice of Commencement.
Lien Filing and/or Service after Labor or Materials Supplied.
Formal Notice—All subcontractors and sub-subcontractors must serve a Formal Notice of their intention to file a lien on the owner at least 30 days before filing Lien Claim.
Lien Claim—All claimants must file a Lien Claim in the prothonotary’s (court clerk’s) office within six months of last work and serve notice of the lien claim on owner within one month after that. An affidavit of service then must be filed with the court within 20 days after service of the written notice on the owner.
Enforcement. All claimants must enforce by filing a lawsuit within two years of Lien Claim filing.
There is no automatic defense of payment for Pennsylvania commercial project owners. Even if the owner has paid the general contractor in full, the basic rule is that a subcontractor will be able to establish a lien and eventually foreclose on the property. The burden is on the owner to make sure that all subcontractors are paid.
The general rule for liens is they are given priority in the order in which they are filed. The first in time filed in the land records will be the “first mortgage,” with the first priority to any proceeds from a foreclosure or sale of the property. If another mortgage is filed in the land records later in time, it will be a “second mortgage.” If the property is foreclosed, this second mortgage will not receive any proceeds until after the first mortgage has been paid in full.
There are very few exceptions to this “first in time, first in right” general rule. One exception is county real estate tax liens, which will always have priority over other liens no matter when they are filed. Another exception is mechanic’s liens that are “inchoate,” such as liens in Pennsylvania. The inchoate Pennsylvania mechanic’s lien “relates back” to and exists from the moment labor or material is visibly supplied to the property, as long as the claimant eventually perfects the lien. Most liens recorded after work visibly began on the property will be inferior to the mechanic’s lien. However, purchase money mortgages and open-ended construction loans will normally have priority over mechanic’s liens.
Lenders can essentially “hold their place” by recording a construction loan that states a maximum future amount. If a construction loan is properly filed and at least 60% of the mortgage proceeds are intended for or used to pay construction costs, the lender can advance future funds up to the maximum amount of the construction loan without checking for visible commencement of work on the security property.  Mortgages held by construction lenders will usually be open ended. “Purchase money mortgages” are used to purchase property. A lender can advance funds to purchase property without checking for visible commencement of work on the security property.
The priority of various liens on real property also determines whether or not the liens survive foreclosure or other sale of the property. Upon foreclosure by any lien holder, all inferior liens are eliminated. The inferior lien holders have no security interest in the property after foreclosure. When any lien holder forecloses on real property, all liens that are prior will survive the foreclosure. The foreclosure purchaser now owns the property “subject to” the prior liens.
Since Pennsylvania mechanic’s liens are inchoate and prior to many other liens, they survive some foreclosures and can actually be filed after foreclosure.  A lender could foreclose on a piece of real estate only to see a mechanic’s lien filed after they have taken title. The mechanic’s lien claimant must be certain to name the new property owner in the mechanic’s lien, but lien rights otherwise still exist. Since purchase money mortgages and construction loans are superior to mechanic’s liens, however, foreclosure on these types of mortgages would cut off lien rights.
The “automatic stay” of the United States Bankruptcy Code does not stay the perfection of the mechanic’s lien claim for new construction. This is because the lien is inchoate. The claimant already had the lien, so the filing does not change anything and is not a preference. In fact, it is important to keep in mind that the Formal Notice of Intent must still be served on the owner and the Lien Claim must be filed within the normal time limits.
The bankruptcy of an owner or upstream contractor should delay enforcement of a mechanic’s lien (by filing a lawsuit), however. It is not permissible to enforce a mechanic’s lien without permission of the Bankruptcy Court, but the claimant is provided additional time later to enforce the mechanic’s lien.
In the case of alteration or repair contracts in Pennsylvania, however, the claimant has no lien until the Lien Claim is filed, and filing a Lien Claim after a bankruptcy petition would violate the automatic stay. In other words, a bankruptcy by the owner or an upstream contractor would probably eliminate lien rights for alteration or repair contracts.
Pennsylvania mechanic’s lien law is somewhat unique in that some general contractors can waive a subcontractor’s right to a mechanic’s lien. Contractors can waive lien rights for lower tier subcontractors on most residential projects and on all projects if the general contractor posts a payment bond to cover the value of the labor and materials provided. Lien waivers by a general contractor are made by filing a “Stipulation Against Liens” (Stipulation), often referred to as a “Stip,” with the prothonotary’s office in the county where the project is located. The Stipulation must be in proper form and must be filed and properly indexed to be valid.
Pennsylvania is a “Notice to Owner” state for any project over one and a half million dollars ($1,500,000), defined as a “Searchable Project.” Pennsylvania has a central Internet-based State Construction Notices Directory for (1) Notices of Commencement; (2) Notices of Furnishing; (3) Notices of Completion; and, (4) Notices of Nonpayment at apps.pa.gov/scnd.
Owners, general contractors, lenders and title insurance companies, who were in favor of these revisions, will probably always post Notices of Commencement on Searchable Projects. This will lower the risk of mechanic’s liens. Lien claimants have at least one more administrative procedure and cost to preserve lien rights on construction projects over $1,500,000 (Searchable Projects) and this will be one more opportunity to lose lien rights. However, lien claimants that do post a Notice of Furnishing on the Notices Directory are more likely to be paid and less likely to need Lien Claims or lawyers.
The Pennsylvania Department of General Services creatd the State Construction Notices Directory, to serve as a standardized statewide system for filing construction notices.
Construction projects over one and a half million dollars ($1,500,000) are “Searchable Projects.”  This will apply to any new erection or construction, or the alteration or repair of an existing improvement. The defined cost minimum of $1,500,000 will probably include all hard and soft “costs of construction.”  Owners of Searchable Projects will have the option to file a “Notice of Commencement” with the Directory prior to the commencement of labor, work or the furnishing of materials.  If the Searchable Project owner files a Notice of Commencement, then any subcontractor or sub-subcontractor (potential lien claimant) must file a “Notice of Furnishing” with the Directory within 45 days after first performing work or services at the job site or providing materials to the job site.  Any potential lien claimant that fails to file a Notice of Furnishing forfeits the right to file a mechanic’s lien claim.  General contractors do not need to file a Notice of Furnishing to preserve lien rights.
In short, owners and general contractors will make use of the new Notice system in Pennsylvania. Subcontractors and suppliers must also engage in the new system if they wish to make sure they are paid for their labor or material after the new Notice system was initiated December 31, 2016.
(1) Full name, address and email address of the contractor.
(2) Full name and location of the searchable project.
(3) The county in which the searchable project is located.
(4) The legal description of the property, including tax identification number(s).
(5) Full name, address and email address of the searchable project owner.
(6) If applicable, the full name, address and email address of any surety providing performance and payment bonds and the bond numbers.
(7) The unique identifying number assigned to the Notice of Commencement.
A contractor may act as agent for the Searchable Project owner to file a Notice of Commencement, if specifically authorized by contract and the owner assumes responsibility for the contractor’s actions. There will be an administrative fee to Searchable Project owners to file a Notice of Commencement.
A potential lien claimant on a Searchable Project has no obligation to file a Notice of Furnishing and will not forfeit lien rights unless a Notice of Commencement has been filed and posted in accordance with the new 49 P.S. §1501.3(b).  Future court case law will have to tell us what rules are critical to a valid Notice of Commencement, whether factual errors or failure to include a building permit number are fatal and the extent of reasonable measures necessary to ensure that the Notice of Commencement remains posted at the site.
A subcontractor that fails to file a Notice of Furnishing on the Department of General Services publicly accessible Internet website as required by the act of August 24, 1963 (P.L. 1175, No. 497), known as the Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963, may forfeit the right to file a mechanics lien. It is unlawful for a searchable project owner, searchable project owner’s agent, contractor or subcontractor to request, suggest, encourage or require that a subcontractor not file the required notice as required by the Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963.
If the Searchable Project owner files a Notice of Commencement, then any potential lien claimant must file a “Notice of Furnishing” with the Directory within 45 days after first performing work or services at the job site or providing materials to the job site. Any potential lien claimant that fails to file a Notice of Furnishing forfeits the right to file a mechanic’s lien claim. However, filing a Notice of Furnishing does not relieve the potential lien claimant of the need to file an actual Lien Claim or to comply with the other code requirements for preserving lien rights.
(1) A general description of the labor or materials furnished.
(2) Full name and address of the person supplying the services or items (potential lien claimant).
(3) Full name and address of the person that contracted for the services or items.
(4) A description sufficient to identify the Searchable Project, based on the description in the Notice of Commencement.
(6) The tax identification number of each parcel included in the Searchable Project.
(7) The number of the building permit for the Searchable Project.
Please take notice that the undersigned is performing certain work or labor or furnishing certain materials to ................... (Name and address of other contracting party) in connection with the improvement to the real property located at .................... The labor, work or materials were performed or furnished first, or will be furnished first on ...... (date).
A Searchable Project owner has the option of also filing a “Notice of Completion” within 45 days of the actual completion of work on the project.  This Notice of Completion is optional and has no impact on the lien rights of potential lien claimants. The Notice of Completion will be transmitted via the Directory to all potential lien claimants who have filed Notices of Furnishing. The term “actual completion of work” means (1) the issuance of an occupancy permit and the acceptance of the work, accompanied by cessation of all work on the Searchable Project; or (2) the cessation of all work for 30 consecutive days, provided that work is not resumed under the same contract.  There is no apparent advantage to an owner in filing a Notice of Completion and it may actually incite potential lien claimants to file their Lien Claim.
A potential lien claimant also has the option of filing a “Notice of Nonpayment” for informational purposes only.  This Notice of Nonpayment is optional, apparently can be sent at any time payment has not been received, and also has no impact on the lien rights of potential lien claimants. However, filing a Notice of Nonpayment will probably increase the chances of payment to a potential lien claimant without a Lien Claim filing, especially if the owner has no defense of payment or stipulation against liens in place. Filing a Notice of Furnishing does not relieve the potential lien claimant of the need to file a Lien Claim or to comply with the other code requirements for preserving lien rights.
It is up to anyone filing any type of Notice to make sure it has been accurately entered in the State Construction Notices Directory in accordance with the statute.  This probably means that owners and potential lien claimants bear the risk of administrative errors entering data in the Directory.
Owners may authorize and require general contractors to file the Notice of Commencement, but owners must make sure that the authorization is in the general contract, along with an explicit assumption of responsibility for the general contractor’s actions in filing the Notice of Commencement.  In any event all owners, lenders and general contractors will want to independently confirm that the Notice of Commencement has been accurately entered in the State Construction Notices Directory in accordance with the statute.  Even an error by the Directory administration may eliminate the protections from mechanic’s liens.
If a Notice of Commencement has been filed, subcontractors and suppliers in Pennsylvania must file a Notice of Furnishing. Otherwise they will be without mechanic’s lien rights, an important security to obtain payment and protect against customer bankruptcy. Perhaps more important, filing a Notice of Furnishing will generally result in payment to subcontractors and suppliers in Pennsylvania, without the need to hire lawyers or file Lien Claims. Apparently, there will be no fee to potential lien claimants to file a Notice of Furnishing. Potential lien claimants should be able to file Notices of Furnishing or Nonpayment without legal assistance and must commit the resources to train personnel to perform this function.
Claimants cannot tack on additional material or labor to a contract for the purpose of extending the time to file a claim.  There is no strict test in Pennsylvania to determine whether mechanic’s lien rights will be extended by supplying small amounts of labor or materials, especially punch list or repair work. The courts seem to use a case-by-case analysis to determine whether work was performed solely for the purpose of extending the time limitation or was provided to complete work provided by the contract. It is prudent to count deadlines from the last substantial new work. Warranty work and repair work may not extend the filing deadlines.  It can also be problematic if long periods of time pass without any work.
If a claimant has multiple contracts to supply labor and materials on a single project, the claimant can “consolidate” the contracts into a single claim.  In this situation, the work is completed when the last contract is completed.  This means that an open account supplier can generally count their deadline from their last delivery.  If long periods of time pass between deliveries, it is safest to count deadlines separately for each delivery and file accordingly.
6. A description of the property.
The Formal Notice must be given to the owner at least 30 days before the Lien Claim is actually filed with the court.  As discussed below, the actual Lien Claim must be filed within six months of the claimant’s last work.  Accordingly, the Formal Notice should be given to the owner no later than approximately five months after completion of the subcontractor’s work. It is impossible to give a Formal Notice too soon. Providing notice to an owner and the construction lender early will freeze money to the owner, general contractor and subcontractors. Filing the Formal Notice early will also allow the claimants to file the Lien Claim sooner, accelerating the entire process.
The Formal Notice can be served by first-class, registered or certified mail on the owner or the owner’s agent.  The notice can also be served by the sheriff or a private process server.  If service cannot be made by any of these methods, then the claimant can “post” the notice on a conspicuous, public part of the project.  This will rarely be an acceptable method, since the preferred methods are usually available.
1. The name of the claimant and whether the claimant files as a contractor or a subcontractor.
4. If filed by a subcontractor, the name of the person with whom the claimant contracted  and the dates on which the Formal Notice was given.
If the claim is filed by a contractor pursuant to a contract for an agreed sum, an identification of the contract and a general statement of the kind and character of the labor and materials furnished.
6. The amount claimed to be due.
A lien will attach, although the owner of the lots on which the houses are built has only an equitable interest.  This means that if a contract purchaser has improvements constructed on the property, then a lien will attach to the contract purchaser’s interest.
A description of an entire planned subdivision development is a sufficient description of the property for a Lien Claim for paving roads and the establishment of storm water drainage areas.  A metes and bounds description  or a deed book and page reference from the land records  are sufficient.
No lien is allowed for labor or materials furnished for a purely public purpose, although it is apparently possible for a municipality to consent to subjecting public property to a mechanic’s lien claim. The exemption from the mechanic’s lien statute does not depend on ownership of the property and improvement by a public entity. Privately owned property can be used for a purely public purpose and be exempt from mechanic’s liens. Publicly owned property used for a proprietary and not governmental purpose can be subject to a lien. The factors considered are: (1) the public’s access to the services provided by the entity, (2) whether the entity’s function with respect to the property is a governmental function or a proprietary function, (3) whether the entity operates with the possibility or motive of profit, and (4) whether allowing execution upon the liens would disrupt an essential public service.
All entities below sub-subcontractors have no lien rights.  This effectively cuts off lien rights for any material supplier dealing with a sub-subcontractor. A supplier to a supplier never has lien rights.  Accordingly, a material supplier will only have lien rights if it had a contract directly with the owner, a contract directly with a general contractor or with a subcontractor that supplied labor and material to a project and had a contract directly with a general contractor.
1. Seeks to substitute a different property.
2. Changes the identity of the owner or the contractor with whom a subcontractor dealt.
Allocation concerns getting the correct property liened for the correct dollar amount. A lien is “overinclusive” or “overbroad” if it liens property to which the contractor supplied no labor or materials. A lien is “overburdening” if it liens a property for more than the value of the labor and materials supplied to that property. These are obviously related concepts.
If a claimant has multiple contracts to supply labor and materials on a single project, the claimant can “consolidate” the contracts into a single claim.  As discussed above, this means an open account supplier can count their deadline from when the last delivery is completed.  This also means that a supplier can make a single Lien Claim for multiple contracts on one property. If more than one property is involved, however, it is still necessary to allocate the claim among properties.
1. The name and address of each party to the action. If the action is commenced by a subcontractor, the complaint must include the name and the address of the contractor.
2. The court, term and number.
3. The date of filing the claim. A copy of the claim must be included as an exhibit.
A defendant cannot bring a counterclaim but may seek a set-off that is limited to the amount of the Lien Claim.  The set-off must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim.  This means that while a defendant owner or contractor can raise direct defenses to the claim, such as defective work or delays, they cannot raise problems arising from another project or different contract.
There is no automatic defense of payment for most commercial Pennsylvania project owners. The basic rule is that most commercial owners can be required to pay for the project twice. Even if the owner has paid the general contractor in full, a subcontractor will be able to establish a lien and eventually foreclose on the property. The burden is on commercial owners to make sure that all subcontractors are paid or take affirmative steps to create a defense of payment.
Accordingly, the Formal Notice is for the protection of the owner, who, upon receipt of notice, can withhold funds from the contractor in order to pay the subcontractor’s claim.  For this reason, it is also to a claimant’s benefit to send a notice as soon as possible. If an owner can withhold payment from the contractor, it is more likely the claimant will be paid without the time and expense of filing suit to enforce the Lien Claim. An owner will fight a Lien Claim much harder if the owner faces the possibility of paying for the project a second time.
Once an owner has been served with a notice of intention to file a claim, the owner is allowed to withhold funds from the contractor.  The owner can require the contractor to promptly settle or discharge the claim.  This is discussed in greater detail in the section below titled Rights and Options of Owners and Lenders.
Any owner can create a defense of payment by filing a copy of the general contract in the prothonotary’s office before commencing construction.  This will limit each subcontractor to a pro rata share of money still owed the general contractor.  Most commercial Pennsylvania project owners will do this. Most Pennsylvania construction lenders require it. Any owner can also give the subcontractor written notice of the contract payment provisions to create a defense of payment,  although this is more difficult and less common.
The statute says that “a subcontractor does not have the right to a lien with respect to an improvement to a residential property” if all of these conditions are met. However, subcontractors would normally have no way to know whether the owner had paid the general contractor or whether the owner intended to use the property for their own residence. Accordingly, it appears that subcontractors can and should file their Lien Claims if they are not paid. The statute seems to recognize this, stating that a court can issue an order discharging the lien against the property when the owner or tenant has paid the full contract price to the general contractor in response to a petition or motion to the court by the owner or a party in interest.  It is up to the owner to contest the lien. It is not clear who has the burden of proof on each condition. However, a subcontractor would not be in possession of evidence regarding payments by the owner or the intended use of the property, so the owner should have the burden.
Various types of liens can be placed on a piece of real estate. Some liens are “consensual,” such as a deed of trust or mortgage. These are placed on the property purposefully by the property owner. Other liens are “involuntary” or “judicial,” including judgment liens and mechanic’s liens.
The general rule is that all liens have priority in the order that they are filed in the land records. The term “first trust” or “first mortgage” means that this was the first trust filed in the land records on that property. A “second trust” is the second trust to be recorded in the land records on that property. If the property is foreclosed upon, the first trust holder receives all of the proceeds of sale, until the first trust holder has been paid in full. If there are any sales proceeds left, they go to the second trust holder, until the second trust holder is paid in full, and so on. The priority of any type of lien is extremely important. Priority will determine whether or not the lienholder gets paid upon foreclosure. A lien with low priority can easily be worthless.
Where the improvement is an alteration or repair, the priority of the mechanic’s lien is as of the date of the filing of the claim.  This is an exception to the general rule that Pennsylvania mechanic’s liens have priority over other liens filed with the court after the date of “visible commencement upon the grounds” of the project. For this reason, it is all the more important for alteration and repair contractors to promptly file their Lien Claim.
A purchase money loan is used to acquire real estate. Purchase money mortgages, like construction loans, have priority over mechanic’s liens, provided these mortgages are promptly filed in the land records.  Given the broad language in the statute, purchase money mortgages filed even after a Lien Claim may have priority over the Lien Claim.  Accordingly, even though the inchoate Pennsylvania mechanic’s lien will survive a sale of the property, the priority of a purchase money lender for the mortgage can dramatically affect the priority of the mechanic’s lien and could mean that a mechanic’s lien claimant is undersecured or entirely unsecured.
The most obvious difference in priority will come from validity. If a mechanic’s lien is invalid because it was not filed in a timely manner or named the wrong owner, then it has no priority at all. This contractor has no mechanic’s lien and is just another unsecured creditor.
Since mechanic’s liens are prior to some other liens, they survive some foreclosures. Since mechanic’s liens are inchoate, they can actually be filed after foreclosure.  A lender that does not have an open-end or purchase money mortgage may foreclose on a piece of real estate only to see a mechanic’s lien filed after they have taken title. The mechanic’s lien claimant must be certain to name the new property owner in the mechanic’s lien, but lien rights otherwise still exist. Since purchase money mortgages and open-end mortgages are superior to mechanic’s liens, however, foreclosure on these types of mortgages would cut off lien rights.
Mechanic’s lien rights for the erection or construction of improvements (new construction) survive any other type of sale of the property, even a transfer to a governmental entity.  Any real estate purchaser must be aware that mechanic’s liens might be filed after they purchase the property for labor and materials supplied to the prior owner.  For this reason, real estate purchasers and title insurance companies always insist that the real estate seller sign an affidavit stating that no labor and materials have been supplied to the property or that payment has been made for all such labor and materials. This may not be enough protection if the real estate seller is insolvent. Real estate purchasers, therefore, may want to independently inquire about whether labor and materials have been recently supplied to the property and whether all persons supplying labor and materials have been paid.
Because the lien is inchoate, the “automatic stay” of the United States Bankruptcy Code should not stay the perfection of the mechanic’s lien claim for new construction. The lien is not a “preference” because the claimant always had the mechanic’s lien from the moment of visible commencement of the work. The perfection of the lien just gives public notice of this fact. In the case of new construction, the claimant is a secured creditor from the moment labor and material are supplied to the property and retains secured status even though lien enforcement proceedings are filed long after bankruptcy. In the case of alteration or repair contracts in Pennsylvania, however, the claimant has no lien until the Lien Claim is filed. Filing a Lien Claim for alteration or repair work after a bankruptcy petition would violate the automatic stay. In other words, a bankruptcy by the owner or an upstream contractor would probably eliminate lien rights for alteration or repair contracts.
It is clear that a claimant can serve the initial Notice of Intent on the Owner after the general contractor files bankruptcy without seeking the permission of the United States Bankruptcy Court.  If a general contractor files bankruptcy, a subcontractor can still send its Notice of Intent on the owner and file the Lien Claim. In fact, it is important to keep in mind that the Notice must still be served and the Lien Claim filed within the normal time limits. It is still possible, but unlikely, that a bankruptcy by an owner would stay service of a Notice of Intent. It is also is not clear whether a bankruptcy by the owner or an upstream contractor would stay the filing of the Lien Claim with the court clerk. The safest course would be to obtain relief from the stay and file the claim before the time limit expires.
Subcontractors on residential projects should check whether lien stipulations have been or will be filed when considering whether to supply labor and materials. Even if an owner has required a Stipulation Against Liens, a claimant may still be able to establish lien rights if the Stipulation was improperly filed. A Stipulation Against Liens may also be ineffective if it is in bad faith or the owner and general contractor are related parties.
Instead of filing a separate Stipulation Against Liens, the owner can simply file the entire general contract.  If the contract includes a waiver of liens and is properly filed and indexed, lien rights will be effectively waived on projects on which lien waivers are permissible.
Subcontractors and suppliers should always be aware of their security rights in determining whether to supply labor and materials to a project, at what price and whether some form of consensual security should be required. If payment problems arise on a residential project with a lien waiver, however, claimants may still have lien rights. First, claimants should check whether lien waivers have been properly filed in a timely manner and properly indexed, as discussed in the section above on Filing of Stipulation.
Under Pennsylvania law, a lien waiver is effective in a subcontract on residential projects,  or on non-residential projects on which the general contractor posts a payment bond to cover the value of the labor and materials provided.  Lien waivers are always permitted in exchange for payments received.  Subcontractors will be able to waive their own lien rights in their subcontracts on all projects if the general contractor posts a payment bond to cover the value of the labor and materials provided. Subcontractors should also be careful to review waivers signed for progress payments. It is still possible to inadvertently waive lien rights for future deliveries in a progress payment waiver.
Contractors are usually requested to sign waivers of lien at the time of each progress payment. Waiver forms presented for signature at that time vary greatly in their wording and effect.  Pennsylvania law still suggests that progress waivers can be effective to completely waive mechanic’s lien rights in the future, even if the initial progress payment is very small.  Contractors often believe that if the waiver form recites a specific dollar amount as received, then mechanic’s lien rights are waived only to the extent of that dollar amount. This may not be true, and a contractor should be careful to inspect the waiver form to determine the extent of rights waived. If there is an “express intent” to waive lien rights for future deliveries, the waiver will be effective.  There is no case law yet to tell us what sort of language would show an “express intent” to waive future lien rights, so subcontractors and suppliers should assume the worst. Common lien waiver language is effective to waive future lien rights in other states. This is discussed in greater detail in greater detail in the chapter on Contracts and Preserving Rights, Contract Administration, Waiver Forms.
At any time after completion of work by a subcontractor, an owner or contractor can file a “Rule.” After the Rule is filed, the subcontractor named therein must file any claim within 30 days after he receives notice of the filing.  If the subcontractor does not file its claim within this time, its lien rights are lost  By filing a Rule, an owner can create a definite timetable for all mechanic’s lien claims to be filed and more quickly make a final payment to the general contractor.
1. The name of the subcontractor, the amount of the claim and the amount withheld by the owner.
At any time after a Lien Claim has been filed, the owner or “any party in interest” can petition the court to discharge the lien by paying into court the dollar amount of the Lien Claim.  The court will hold the funds deposited as security for the lien claimant, but the real property will no longer be encumbered by the lien.  Owners and lenders often require this procedure if a Lien Claim is filed. Owners or general contractors may want to use this procedure instead of paying off a lien claimant if they intend to defend against the Lien Claim.
 49 P.S. §1201(5); 49 P.S. §1301(a); 49 P.S. §1303(a).
 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8143 and 42 Pa. C.S. §8143(b).
 49 P.S. §1508(a); Knoell v. Carey, 291 Pa. 531, 140 A. 522 (1928).
 Northup v. Ben Thompson Enterprises, 220 B.R. 855, 859 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1998); In re Poloron Products, 76 B.R. 383 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Pa. 1987).
 49 P.S. §1303(d); Key Automotive Equipment Specialists, Inc. v. Abernethy, 431 Pa. Super. 358 (1994).
 49 P.S. §1201(15) [“Costs of construction” means all costs, expenses and reimbursements pertaining to erection, construction, alteration, repair, mandated off-site improvements, government impact fees and other construction-related costs, including, but not limited to, costs, expenses and reimbursements in the nature of taxes, insurance, bonding, inspections, surveys, testing, permits, legal fees, architect fees, engineering fees, consulting fees, accounting fees, management fees, utility fees, tenant improvements, leasing commissions, payment of prior filed or recorded liens or mortgages, including mechanics liens, municipal claims, mortgage origination fees and commissions, finance costs, closing fees, recording fees, title insurance or escrow fees, or any similar or comparable costs, expenses or reimbursements related to an improvement made or intended to be made to the property. For purposes of this definition, reimbursement includes any such disbursements made to the borrower, any person acting for the benefit or on behalf of the borrower or to an affiliate of the borrower].
 49 P.S. §1501.3(a)(4) [The term “reasonable measures” means the reposting of notice by the searchable project owner within 48 hours after becoming aware of or being notified verbally, in writing or by email that the notice is not posted].
 49 P.S. §1501.6(b) and (c).
 49 P.S. §1501.6(d) and (e).
 49 P.S. §1501.4(c) [A Notice of Completion shall not be considered by a court in determining compliance with timing requirements under this Act or in determining the completion date for a timing purpose, including limitation periods or warranty obligations. The filing of a Notice of Completion is purely precatory (advisory) and is not dispositive of any relationship among the parties].
 49 P.S. §1201(8); G.E.M. Building Contractors and Developers, Inc. v. Egidio’s, Inc., 14 Pa. D. & C. 4th 609 (1992).
 Felheim v. Perry Brewing Co., 63 Pa. Super. 561 (1961).
 McKelvey v. Jarvis, 87 Pa. 414 (1878).
 49 P.S. §1306(a); McCrady-Redgers Co. v. Nenoff, et. al. 39 A.2d 260 (Pa. 1944).
 Rome Elec. Co. v. R. & F. Const., Inc., 70 Pa. D. & C.2d 168 (1974).
 L&W Supply Corp. v. Amin, 2010 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 672, 5-6 (Pa. County Ct. 2010, citing Tesauro v. Baird, 232 Pa. Super. 185, 335 A.2d 792, 796 (Pa. Super. 1975).
 49 P.S. §1501(B.1); Green Hills Lumber Co. v. Williams, 32 Pa. D. & C.2d 759 (1963).
 49 P.S. §1502(a)(1); Brant v. Hardick, 60 Pa.Super. 507 (1915); McCrady-Redgers Co. v. Nenoff, et. al., 39 A.2d 260 (Pa. 1944).
 49 P.S. §1501(d); Clemleddy Construction, Inc. v. Yorston, 2002 Pa.Super. 342, 810 A.2d 693 (2002).
 49 P.S. §1502(a)(1); Hamilton v. Means, 155 Pa.Super. 245, 38 A.2d 528 (1944).
 49 P.S. §1507; Delmont Mech. Servs. v. Kenver Corp., 450 Pa. Super. 666, 674-75, 677 A.2d 1241, 1245-46 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
 Delmont Mech. Servs. v. Kenver Corp., 450 Pa. Super. 666, 674, 677 A.2d 1241, 1245-46 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) [failure to correctly name the owner of the property is a fatal defect and renders the lien invalid].
 Leeward Constr. v. SCP 2007-C27-093 LLC, 5 Pa. D. & C.5th 377, 2008 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 138 (Pa. County Ct. 2008).
 Penstan Supply Div. of Hajoca Corp. v. Traditions of Am., L.P., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 567, 568-69 (Pa. County Ct. 2010), citing Delmont Mechanical Services. Inc. v. Kenver Corp., 450 Pa. Super. 666, 677 A.2d 1241, 1244 (Pa.Super. 1996); Leeward Constr. v. SCP 2007-C27-093 LLC, 5 Pa. D. & C.5th 377, 2008 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 138 (Pa. County Ct. 2008).
 Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. Kessler, 2012 PA Super 100, 46 A.3d 724, 734-35 (2012); L&W Supply Corp. v. Amin, 2010 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 672, 5-6 (Pa. County Ct. 2010) [as to notice requirements], citing Tesauro v. Baird, 232 Pa. Super. 185, 335 A.2d 792, 796 (Pa. Super. 1975).
 49 P.S. §1502(a)(1); Houseworth v. Weyant, et. al., 78 Pa. D. & C. 211 (1952).
 49 P.S. §1502(a)(2); J.H. Hommer Lumber Company, Inc. v. Dively, 401 Pa.Super. 72 (1990).
 49 P.S. §1502(c); Clemleddy Construction, Inc. v. Yorston, 2002 PA Super 342, 810 A.2d 693 (2002).
 49 P.S. §1502(a)(2); Seese v. Hoza, 43 Pa. D. & C.3d 639 (1982).
 49 P.S. §1503(2); Delmont Mech. Servs. v. Kenver Corp., 450 Pa. Super. 666, 674, 677 A.2d 1241, 1245-46 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) [failure to correctly name the owner of the property is a fatal defect and renders the lien invalid].
 Penstan Supply Div. of Hajoca Corp. v. Traditions of Am., L.P., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 567, 569-70 (Pa. County Ct. 2010) [Lien is invalid identifying “Traditions of America” as owner, where “TOA PA IV, L.P.” was the record owner].
 L-Co. Cabinet Corp. v. Summit Square Apartments, Inc., 64 Pa. D. & C.2d 528 (Leb. Co. 1973).
 49 P.S. §1201(3); Westmoreland v. Century III Assoc., 16 Pa. D. & C.3d 218 (1980).
 49 P.S. §1303(d); American Seating Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 370, 256A.2d 599 (1969); Westmoreland v. Century III Assoc., 16 Pa. D. & C.3d 218, (1980).
 Keller v. Denmead & Son, 68 Pa. 449 (1871).
 King Manor Homes, Inc. v. Green, 25 Monroe L.R. 56, 42 Pa. D. & C.2d 136 (1967); N-B Building Supply Co. v. Cresko, 54 Luz. Co. 275 (1965).
 Glemba v. Gaso, 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 347 (1975).
 Tilo Roofing Co. v. Abeloff, 75 Pa. D. & C. 535 (1950).
 See Kihm-Bowen Mach Co. v. Midwest Supply Co., 3 Pa. D.&C 755 (1923).
 49 P.S. §1503(2); Delmont Mech. Servs. v. Kenver Corp., 450 Pa. Super. 666, 677 A.2d 1241 (1996); Empire Excavating Co. v. Luzerne County Housing Authority, 303 Pa. Super. 25, 449 A.2d 60 (1982); Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Pa Humane Soc’y Lgl Animal Care Prods., 2006 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 689 (2006).
 Northeast Brick Co. v. Street Road Shopping Center, 50 Pa. D. & C.2d 614 (1970).
 49 P.S. §1503; Penstan Supply Div. of Hajoca Corp. v. Traditions of Am., L.P., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 567, 570 (Pa. County Ct. 2010).
 Brubacher Excavating, Inc. v. Lower Macungie Twp., 2012 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 111 (Pa. C.P. 2012).
 Wash. Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. Nitrochem L.L.C., 58 Pa. D. & C.4th 195, 2002 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 203 (Pa. County Ct. 2002), citing Marchak v. McClure, 176 Pa. Super. 381, 108 A.2d 77 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1954).
 Penstan Supply Div. of Hajoca Corp. v. Traditions of Am., L.P., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 567, 570 (Pa. County Ct. 2010) [Lien is invalid where claimant had conducted work on multiple structures on the property and failed to state which materials were used or which improvements were made for each structure].
 49 P.S. §1306(b); Penstan Supply Div. of Hajoca Corp. v. Traditions of Am., L.P., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 567, 571 (Pa. County Ct. 2010); Morrissey Const. Co. v. Cross Realty Co., 48 Pa. D. & C.2d 565 (1969).
 49 P.S. §1306(b); Clearwater Concrete & Masonry, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 2010 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 193, 9-10 (Pa. C.P. 2010) [actually refers to “multiple parcels,” but should probably be “multiple improvements”], aff’d Clearwater Concrete & Masonry v. Lowe’s, 26 A.3d 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).
 49 P.S. §1306(b); 68 Pa.C.S. §3409; Metco, Inc. v. Moss Creek, Inc., 529 Pa. 53, 58, 601 A.2d 802, 804-05 (Pa. 1992).
 Metco, Inc. v. Moss Creek, Inc., 529 Pa. 53, 601 A.2d 802, 804-05 (1992), citing Meyers Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. v. Caste, 350 Pa. Super. 482, 504 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986).
 49 P.S. §1303(b); Brubacher Excavating, Inc. v. Lower Macungie Twp., 2012 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 111 (Pa. C.P. 2012); Empire Excavating Co. v. Luzerne County Housing Authority, 303 Pa. Super. 25, 449 A.2d 60 (1982).
 American Seating Co. v. Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 370, 256 A.2d 599 (1969).
 Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Pa. Humane Soc’y LGL Animal Care Prods., 913 A.2d 1002, 1005-1006 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) [Humane Society that provided the primary means for controlling the animal population, spaying and neutering animals and the county had delegated the duty of enforcing the animal cruelty laws to the shelter].
 American Seating Co. v. Philadelphia, 434 Pa. 370, 375, 256 A.2d 599, 601-02 (Pa. 1969) [A sports arena owned by the City of Philadelphia was not exempt from a mechanic’s lien where the municipality acts as an absent landlord, entrusting the management and control of its premises to its tenant, where the building was constructed and paid for by the tenant, and where the municipality in owning the building, discharges a function not governmental in nature, but rather proprietary and quasi-private].
 Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Northwestern Pa. Humane Soc’y LGL Animal Care Prods., 913 A.2d 1002, 1005-1006 (Pa. Commw.
 B.N. Excavating, Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A, L.P., 2013 PA Super 120, 71 A.3d 274, 278-79 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
 Blue Mt. Equip. Rental Corp. v. Phillips Station Riverfront South, L.P., 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 63 (Pa. County Ct. 2013), citing Alguire v. Keller, 68 Pa. Super. 279 (1917) [basement foundation is not a sufficient structure for lien rights if the house is not otherwise completed].
 W.H. Harrison & Brother v. Women’s Homeopathic Assoc., 134 Pa. 558, 19 A. 804 (1890).
 Frank v. Kutner, 71 Pa. D. & C.2d 501 (1975).
 W.H. Kneas Lumber Co., Inc. v. Ciccarone, 20 Pa. D. & C.2d 407 (1961).
 Northwood Nurseries v. Timber Hill, Inc., 66 Pa. D. & C.2d 314 (1974); Sampson-Miller Associated Companies, Inc. v. Landmark Realty Co., 224 Pa. Super. 25 (1973).
 49 P.S. §1201(1); Joyce v. Sarnelli, 29 Pa. D. & C.3d 544 (1984).
 Joyce V. Sarnelli, 29 Pa. D. & C.3d 544 (1984).
 49 P.S. §1503(5), (6); Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. Kessler, 2012 PA Super 100, 46 A.3d 724, 734-35 (2012) [substantial compliance is sufficient]; Supply Companies, Inc. v. Campbell, 43 Pa. D. & C.3d 245 (1986).
 49 P.S. §1306(a); Rome Elec. Co. v. R.&F. Const., Inc., 70 Pa. D. & C.2d 168 (1974).
 Metropolitan International v. Union Investment Co., 17 Pa. D. & C.3d 519 (1981).
 Bennett v. Frederick R. Gerry Co., 273 Pa. 585, 117 A. 345 (1922).
 49 P.S. §1201(7) & (9); Artsmith Dev. Group, Inc. v. Updegraff, 2005 PA Super 11, 868 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005); Wyatt Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pa., 2006 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 386 (Pa. County Ct. 2006) affd on appeal Wyatt Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pa., 2009 PA Super 107, 976 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8101; Brubacher Excavating, Inc. v. Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A., 2010 PA Super 67, 995 A.2d 362, 370 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
 Artsmith Dev. Group, Inc. v. Updegraff, 2005 PA Super 11, 868 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
 Wyatt Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pa., 2009 PA Super 107, 976 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
 49 P.S. §1201(5); see Blue Mt. Equip. Rental Corp. v. Phillips Station Riverfront South, L.P., 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 63 (Pa. County Ct. 2013).
 49 P.S. §1201(12)(a); Hunter v. Meadville Sandblasting, Inc., 14 Pa. D. & C.4th 562 (1992); Blue Mt. Equip. Rental Corp. v. Phillips Station Riverfront South, L.P., 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 63 (Pa. County Ct. 2013) [demolition].
 B.N. Excavating, Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A, L.P., 2013 PA Super 120, 71 A.3d 274 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013; see also 49 P.S. §1305 [except in case of destruction by fire or other casualty, where, through no fault of the claimant, the improvement is not completed, the right to lien shall nevertheless exist]; but see Blue Mt. Equip. Rental Corp. v. Phillips Station Riverfront South, L.P., 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 63 (Pa. County Ct. 2013) [decided months before B.N. Excavating].
 Dollar Bank, FSB v. EM2 Dev. Corp., 716 A.2d 671, 673-674 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
 Brubacher Excavating, Inc. v. Lower Macungie Twp., 2012 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 111, 3-4 (Pa. C.P. 2012).
 B.N. Excavating, Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A, L.P., 2013 PA Super 120, 71 A.3d 274, 281-84 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
 49 P.S. §1201(10); Wendt & Sons v. New Hedstrom Corp., 2004 PA Super 355, 858 A.2d 631, 636 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
 49 P.S. §1201(4); Gunter Geiger System, Ltd. v. Aristocrat Upholstery Co., Inc., 220 Pa.Super. 442 (1972).
 49 P.S. §1201(5); Bennett v. Frederick R. Gerry Co., et al., 117 A. 345 (Pa. 1922).
 49 P.S. §1303(a); See Hamilton v. Means, 155 Pa. Super. 245, 38 A.2d 528 (1944).
 49 P.S. §1504; Zeigler Lumber & Supply Co. v. Golden Triangle Development Co., Inc., 229 Pa.Super. 548 (1974).
 49 P.S. §1306(b); Metco, Inc. v. Moss Creek, Inc., 385 Pa. Super. 542, 561 A.2d 808 (1989); Meyers Plumbing and Heating Supply v. Caste, 350 Pa.Super. 482, 504 A.2d. 442 (1986).
 49 P.S. §1302; Kissinger Structural Sales, Inc. v. Strubinger, 40 Pa. D. & C.3d 43 (1983); Old Fellows Hall v. Masser, Inc., 24 Pa. 507 (1855); Global Church Builders and Suppliers, Inc. v. Bethel Park Christian Church, 32 Som. 349 (1973).
 Haney v. Moorhead, 61 Pa. Super. 187 (1915).
 49 P.S. §1306(a); Morrissey Const. Co. v. Cross Realty Co., 48 Pa. D. & C.2d 565 (1969); Rome Elec. Co. v. R.&F. Const., Inc., 70 Pa. D. & C.2d 168 (1974).
 49 P.S. §1701(b); Tully Drilling Co., Inc. v. Shenkin, 409 Pa. Super. 333, 597 A.2d 1230 (1991).
 49 P.S. §1701(d); Fisher Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Ide, 305 Pa. Super 554 (1982).
 49 P.S. §1701(e); Matternas v. Stehman, 642 A.2d 1120, 434 Pa. Super. 255 (1994).
 49 P.S. §1508(a); Collegeville National Bank v. Frehafer, 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 14 (1955); Knoell v. Carey, 291 Pa. 531, 140 A. 522 (1928).
 Wyatt Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pa., 2006 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 386 (Pa. County Ct. 2006) affd on appeal Wyatt Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pa., 2009 PA Super 107, 976 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009); Wendt & Sons v. New Hedstrom Corp., 2004 PA Super 355, 858 A.2d 631 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
 See Trustees of C.I. Mortgage Group v. Stagg of Huntingdon, Inc., 247 Pa. Super. 336, 372 A.2d 854 (1977) rev’d on other grounds, 484 Pa. 264, 399 A.2d 386 (1978) for discussion of Construction Loan Advances generally.
 42 Pa. C.S. §8143(b) and (d).
 42 Pa.C.S. § 8141(1) [Purchase money mortgages have priority from the time they are delivered to the mortgagee, if they are recorded within 10 days after their date; otherwise, from the time they are left for record].
 Collegeville National Bank v. Frehafer, 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 14 (1955); Dubois Lumber & Coal Co. v. Miller, 48 Montg. 197 (1931).
 Kiem v. McRoberts, 18 Pa. Super. 167 (1901).
 Collegeville National Bank v. Frehafer, 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 14 (1955); Wagner v. Manback, 18 Pa. C.C. 471 (1896); See subsection above, Priority between Mechanic’s Liens and Other Liens.
 However, it may be risky to wait to send notice of a lien until after an innocent purchaser has gone to settlement. Kelly Sys. v. Koda, 2008 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 250, 9-10 (Pa. County Ct. 2008), vacated and remanded with no published opinion at Kelly Sys. v. Koda, 987 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) [Had purchasers been aware of the financial condition of their general contractor they would have been able to withhold monies and avoid the lien. We will not allow a subcontractor to delay filing a lien on property, with knowledge of the general contractor’s illiquidity, in order to reach a more creditworthy property owner. We conclude that the plaintiff is equitably estopped from collecting from the new owners].
 T.P. Elec., Inc. v. GGC, LLC (In re GGC, LLC), 329 B.R. 36 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005). See generally In re Gem Construction Corporation of Virginia, 262 B.R. 638 (2000); M & T Electrical Contractors v. Capital Lighting and Supply, Inc. (In re M & T Electrical Contractors, Inc.), 267 B.R. 434 (Bkcy Ct. D.C. 2001).
 T.P. Elec., Inc. v. GGC, LLC (In re GGC, LLC), 329 B.R. 36 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005).
 Yobe Electric v. Graybar Electric Co., 30 Bankr. 114 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1983), aff’d 728 F.2d 207 (3d Cir. 1984); H.T. Bowling, Inc. v. Bain, 52 Bankr. 58 (W.D. Va. 1985), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 64 Bankr. 581 (W.D. Va. 1986).
 49 P.S. § 1401(b)(2); L&W Supply Corp. v. Amin, 2010 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 672, 8-9 (Pa. County Ct. 2010).
 Lisk Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Schons, 283 Pa. Super. 344 (1981); Patrick McGuigan Roofing v. Kallman, 405 Pa. Super. 586, 592 A.2d 1368 (1991).
 49 P.S. §1402; Patrick McGuigan Roofing v. Kallman, 405 Pa. Super. 586, 592 A.2d 1368 (1991).
 Site Improvements, Inc. v. Central and Western Chester County Industrial Development Authority, 293 Pa. Super. 1, 437 A.2d 960 (1981).
 See Lisk Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Schons, 283 Pa. Super. 344 (1981).
 49 P.S. §1405; See section above, Defense of Payment: Owner’s Responsibility for Payment to Subcontractors.
 Glemba v. Gaso, 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 347 (Washington Co., 1975); L-Co Cabinet Corp. v. Summit Square Apartments, Inc., 64 Pa. D. & C.2d 528 (1973).
 Foggia Builders, Inc. v. RJD Construction Co., Inc., 75 Pa. D & C.2d 170 (Del. Co. 1975), aff’d. 360 A.2d 235 (Pa. Superior Ct.).

References: §1501
 §1201
 §1301
 §1303
 §8143
 §8143
 §1508
 v. 
 v. 
 §1303
 v. 
 §1201
 §1501
 §1501
 §1501
 §1501
 §1201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1306
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1501
 v. 
 §1502
 v. 
 v. 
 §1501
 v. 
 §1502
 v. 
 §1507
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1502
 v. 
 §1502
 v. 
 §1502
 v. 
 §1502
 v. 
 §1503
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 §1303
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1503
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1503
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1306
 v. 
 v. 
 §1306
 v. 
 v. 
 §1306
 §3409
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1303
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 V. 
 §1503
 v. 
 v. 
 §1306
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §8101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1305
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 §1201
 v. 
 §1303
 v. 
 §1504
 v. 
 §1306
 v. 
 v. 
 §1302
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1306
 v. 
 v. 
 §1701
 v. 
 §1701
 v. 
 §1701
 v. 
 §1508
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §8143
 § 8141
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1401
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1402
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1405
 v. 
 v. 
 v.