Court Opinion

ID: 9750868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:42:27.489367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:25.961821
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J., Dissenting.
Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298] was an unjust decision at *1585odds with authoritative texts and the Supreme Court (see id. at pp. 1243-1244), as well as with statutes, the legislative history discussed in the opinion,1 and the plain language of the release. The words “this document shall become effective to release pro tanto” plainly indicated that the release was partial, i.e., to the extent of the payment. Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of pro tanto was even set forth in the release before this court in Halbert’s Lumber. “For so much; for as much as may be; as far as it goes.” (Black’s Law Diet. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1222, col. 2.) Although it purports to be a primer on interpretation, Halbert’s Lumber violates several of the cardinal rules, e.g., that every part of a statute or instrument must be given effect to the extent possible (Civ. Code, § 3541; Code Civ. Proc., § 1858) and should be interpreted reasonably (Civ. Code, § 3542). This court simply excised the words pro tanto; the effect of the Halbert’s Lumber decision was to render the phrase meaningless.
California Mechanics’ Liens and Other Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar 1988) section 4.39, page 217 states that a subcontractor’s mechanics’ lien rights “[u]sually ... are released on a pro tanto basis, i.e., to the extent of the payment and usually only to the date of the document.” (Italics added.) The same volume emphasizes the importance of accompanying a progress payment with “a release of lien, to be executed by the subcontractor, to the extent of the payment.’’2 {Id. at § 5.34, p. 257, italics added.) The business and legal communities were entitled to rely on settled dogma. Instead, Halbert’s Lumber has undoubtedly provided windfalls for many at the expense of materialmen and subcontractors.
I would issue a peremptory writ.
Petitioner’s application for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 23, 1994. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the application should be granted.

 The majority’s discussion of the Legislature’s reaction reveals Halbert’s Lumber was thought to have been wrongly decided in many, perhaps most, quarters; but powerful political opposition prevented an outright declaration to that effect.

 In reaction to Halbert’s Lumber, the Continuing Education of the Bar text notes, “In view of this decision, a claimant, when confronted with a release form, should modify the form to add language stating: ‘The release is only to the extent of the amount of the subject progress payment and does not cover unbilled amounts, extra work, retention, claims, or any other amounts.’ ” (Cal. Mechanics’ Liens and Other Remedies (Cont.Ed.Bar Supp. 1994) § 4.39, p. 51.)