Court Opinion

ID: 9577564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:36:02.761492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:48.749596
License: Public Domain

*225Justice Meyer
dissenting.
I dissent from part II of the majority opinion, which holds that in order to perfect his lien, a lien claimant is not required to substantially comply with the model statutory form set forth in N.C.G.S. § 44A-19(b), so long as all of the information required by the form is contained in the notice. Even liberally construing the statute, it is quite clear that the legislative intent was that a form was not merely contemplated but required in order to perfect the lien.
The majority does not contend that our legislature lacks the power or authority to specifically require the substantial compliance with a form. Generally, the composition of our legislature includes numerous astute businessmen who are well aware that employees who handle incoming mail are easily trained to recognize a “notice of lien” form and to route it to the proper official for appropriate action. Such employees may not be so adept at reading and interpreting what appears to be ordinary correspondence and determining that somewhere within the items of correspondence is contained all of the information that is required on the form specified by the legislature. The form mandated by the statute requires a bold “all caps” heading that defies misinterpretation: “Notice of Claim of Lien by First, Second or Third Tier Subcontractor.” The form also requires that the signatory be designated “Lien Claimant.” No extensive reading and no interpretation are required.
The majority recognizes that “[u]nder the statute a form is clearly contemplated.” The statute provides in pertinent part “notices of claims of liens . . . must be given using a form substantially as follows.” N.C.G.S. § 44A-19(b) (1984) (emphasis added). The intent of the legislature that, as a prerequisite to the validity of the notice, a form be used is inescapable. It is the “form” that must be substantially complied with and not simply its content, as the majority suggests.
Justice Mitchell joins in this dissenting opinion.