Opinion ID: 1228580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Woodington's Case

Text: Blue Phoenix Corporation formerly known as Baymark Companies, Inc. and/or Mid-Atlantic Building Corporation, and/or Baymark Builders, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Blue Phoenix) owned nine parcels of land in Norfolk. Blue Phoenix hired Woodington Electric, Inc. (Woodington) to supply labor and materials for electrical work to be used in and about and incorporated into improvements being constructed by Blue Phoenix on its property. The improvements consisted of marina facilities, a clubhouse, and a restaurant. On September 6, 1984, after entering the aforementioned agreement with Woodington, Blue Phoenix filed a Declaration of Baymark Yacht Haven, A Condominium. Only a portion of Blue Phoenix's nine parcels of land were made part of the condominium regime. All the labor and material supplied by Woodington was limited to condominium property. On September 21, 1984, fifteen days after Blue Phoenix established its condominium regime, Woodington filed a memorandum of mechanic's lien claiming $52,000 with interest thereon at 1.5 percent per month for the labor and material. Woodington listed Blue Phoenix as the owner. The structure on which work had been done or materials supplied was identified as a boat slip marina or clubhouse. In its brief description of the property, Woodington referred to a deed which described Blue Phoenix's property as the nine parcels that existed prior to the creation of the condominium. On March 19, 1985, Woodington filed its bill of complaint to enforce its mechanic's lien. There, it described in two ways the property against which a lien was sought. In the body of paragraph 3 of its bill, it described the property as 10.877 acres of land located in the City of Norfolk as shown on the plat entitled `Physical Survey of Baymark Yacht Haven, a Condominium.'  However, paragraph 3 of Woodington's bill referred to an exhibit for a more particular description of the property. That exhibit was the same deed referred to in the memorandum of mechanic's lien which described Blue Phoenix's property as it existed before the condominium was created. In its bill of complaint, Woodington demanded that its lien be enforced against all nine of the original pre-condominium parcels of land owned by Blue Phoenix. Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and Lincoln Service Corporation, Trustee (hereinafter collectively referred to as Lincoln), as well as Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association and Pioneer Financial Corporation, Trustee, f/k/a Pioneer Financial Services, Inc., Trustee (hereinafter collectively referred to as Pioneer) filed separate yet identical demurrers. Pertinent here are the following two grounds contained in the demurrers: a. that the bill and the mechanic's lien sought to be enforced therein were invalid and unenforceable because the lien was filed as a joint and blanket lien without apportionment among the various condominium units and general and limited common elements; and b. that the bill and the mechanic's lien sought to be enforced therein were invalid and unenforceable because Woodington by its mechanic's lien had encumbered not only the property submitted to the condominium known as Baymark Yacht Haven, a Condominium, but also additional land not so submitted and upon which latter land Woodington had added no value by its work, labor, or service. The trial court sustained the demurrer on both grounds. In a letter opinion, it stated that this Court has narrowly construed the mechanic's lien statutes and that, in the trial court's view, this Court has expressed a public policy ... that you cannot intentionally or negligently cloud a title with a claim of lien which is not based on precisely defined limits and proof of labor and materials expended in relation to that property. The trial court wrote further that [i]n effect you cannot have a prejudgment lien on property assessed in a mistaken manner. Woodington appealed.