Court Opinion

ID: 9607172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:55:58.124435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:37.406787
License: Public Domain

Judge Baley
dissenting.
I interpret G.S. 44A-12 (b) as meaning that the filing time relates to the time when the materials were last furnished, not to the time when claimant said they were last furnished. There is no provision in the lien statute which requires any claimant of lien to set out in his claim the date upon which materials or labor were last furnished. There is no requirement that the public be given notice of the last date materials were furnished, and an examiner of public records ordinarily would not be apprised of this date. If the statement of the claimant be controlling, it is conceivable that a claimant could make a false statement about the date when materials were last furnished in order to enlarge the time for filing lien. Claimant can neither enlarge nor reduce the statutory period by an error in stating *733the time when materials were last furnished. When the case comes on for trial plaintiff must prove that his claim of lien was filed within the statutory period from the time the materials were last furnished in order to establish his lien.
Lien statutes are designed to give the laborer or material-man a specific claim upon the property which has received benefit from his labor and materials. The purpose of recordation is to provide notice to prospective purchasers of the property or creditors that there is an encumbrance on the property and protect claimant in the enforcement of his lien. The recording statute requires that the claim of lien must be filed in apt time, but when the statute does not require that the date when materials are last furnished be specified in the notice of claim, neither the record examiner nor the court can place absolute reliance on the accuracy of a date which has been voluntarily furnished by claimant in determining if the claim is filed within the statutory limits. The claim must be treated as if it did not contain a statement of the specific date upon which materials were last furnished.
While in North Carolina this precise question does not appear to have been determined, courts of other states have held in several cases that a notice of lien which appears on its face to be untimely filed is not automatically void. Burleigh Bldg. Co. v. Merchant Brick & Bldg. Co., 13 Colo. App. 455, 59 P. 83 (1899) ; Empire State Surety Co. v. City of Des Moines, 152 Iowa 531, 131 N.W. 870 (1911) ; Knowlton v. Gibbons, 210 Mich. 547, 178 N.W. 63 (1920); Phelan v. Cheyenne Brick Co., 26 Wyo. 493, 188 P. 354 (1920).
The second contention of defendants is that plaintiff’s notice of lien is invalid because it fails to specify the exact date of the month when labor or materials were first furnished. Such failure does not prevent an examiner of public records from discovering the existence of the lien. It may, however, make it impossible for the record searcher to determine whether plaintiff’s lien has priority over other liens attaching to the same property. Priority among laborers’ and materialmen’s liens is determined by the date of first furnishing. G.S. 44A-10.
Since plaintiff has made it impossible for the record searcher to determine when he first furnished labor or materials, other than that it occurred in February 1973, his lien should be deemed to relate back only to the last day of the month. Ambi*734guities in a document should be resolved against the person who drafted the document. Contracting Co. v. Ports Authority, 284 N.C. 732, 202 S.E. 2d 473; Root v. Insurance Co., 272 N.C. 580, 158 S.E. 2d 829; Trust Co. v. Medford, 258 N.C. 146, 128 S.E. 2d 141. This step is sufficient to remedy the problems created by plaintiff’s failure to specify the exact date of first furnishing, and it is unnecessary to resort to the harsher remedy of can-celling plaintiff’s notice and invalidating his lien.
My vote is to affirm the judgment of the trial court.