Opinion ID: 36866
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pipes made a proper request for lien cancellation.

Text: 7 The Pipes argue that Dyna Ten unreasonably refused to cancel the lien after being requested to do so in violation of Louisiana law. Louisiana statute § 9:4833 states that an owner or other interested person may require the person who has filed [the lien] ... to cancel the statement of claim. LA.REV.STAT. Ann. § 9:4833(A) (West 1991). If the lienholder refuses to cancel the lien without reasonable cause, he shall be liable for damages suffered by the owner or person requesting the [cancellation]. § 9:4833(B). 8 Dyna Ten argues that Pipes's request was improper because it was not sent to the address and agent described in the lien. Section 4833 does not state whom should receive the request for cancellation where, as here, the lienholder is a corporation. Section 4842, however, is incorporated into § 4833 by the comment and states that notice required or permitted to be given in this Part ... may be addressed to an owner, contractor, or surety at the address given in a notice of contract. § 4842 (emphasis added). Louisiana courts have interpreted this section as being permissive, and that a request is not limited to the listed agents. Frey Plumbing Co., v. Cmty. Care, L.L.C., 817 So.2d 395, 397 (La.App. 4 Cir.2002) (It is axiomatic in statutory construction matters that the word `may' is permissive. It is quite clear to us that [plaintiff] was free to use another address.). Dyna Ten concedes that the Pipes sent the request to Houck, an attorney representing Dyna Ten in the Pipes Industrial-Willamette-Dyna Ten bankruptcy negotiations. The Pipes's request sent to an attorney actively involved with the legal affairs of Dyna Ten, given the permissive nature of § 4842, was proper. 2 9