Opinion ID: 1298264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Buckhorn Timely File a Claim of Lien?

Text: As explained above, Buckhorn is a licensed general contractor engaged in the sale and installation of prefabricated modular homes. As such, Buckhorn may secure payment of a contract price by filing a lien. AS 34.35.050(1) and (6). [11] A prerequisite to a valid lien is the timely recording of the lien claim. AS 34.350.68(c). [12] Unless the real property owner records a notice of completion of construction as provided in AS 34.35.071, a claimant must record a lien within ninety days after completion of performance. AS 34.35.068(a). [13] The Hays did not file a notice of completion. Accordingly, Buckhorn had ninety days after completing construction to file its claim of lien. Id. Nystrom argues that Buckhorn completed original construction on October 31, 1984, and merely performed warranty work on December 21, 1984. Therefore, according to Nystrom, Buckhorn failed to file a claim of lien within ninety days after completion of performance as required by AS 34.35.068(a). The superior court found that Buckhorn completed construction on or before December 22, 1984, when it replaced defective wall paneling and floor joists broken during installation of the home. Buckhorn filed a claim of lien on February 27, 1985, which is within ninety days of December 22, 1984. The superior court concluded that Buckhorn timely filed a claim of lien. The question of whether the performance has been completed or has ceased is a factual one. B. Blum, Mechanics and Construction Liens in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, § 6.2.2, at 192 (1987) (hereinafter Blum). The question of when Buckhorn completed construction is also one of fact. The evidence on the record relating to this question is ambiguous and incomplete. Nystrom claims that construction was completed by October 2, 1984, based upon Buckhorn's appraiser's certification that construction of the home was 100% complete on that date. [14] On the other hand Buckhorn claims that after October 2, 1984, Buckhorn had to replace defective floor joists and paneling and therefore completed construction on December 21, 1984. [15] The facts are not clear in the record before us. We find that the question of when Buckhorn completed construction raises a genuine issue of material fact and hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Nystrom. We remand this issue to the trial court for a determination of the facts at trial. However, we proceed here to address the questions of law raised in this appeal to provide guidance to the trial court in its deliberations on remand.