Court Opinion

ID: 9845624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:25:19.5879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:16.434955
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion and in the result. However, I must clarify that the language in the materialman’s lien statute used to support Eurostyle’s argument that no notice need be filed in superior court if the action is also filed in superior court was removed by the amendment to the statute put into effect in 1983. See Ga. L. 1983, pp. 1450, 1453. Before 1983, the pertinent language required com*189mencement of an action to recover the amount of the claim within 12 months of the date the amount was due and “‘if the action is not filed in the superior court of the county in which the claim of lien was filed, then also within such 12 months’ period, the party claiming the lien shall file under oath with the clerk of the superior court of the county wherein the subject lien was filed a notice. . . .’” Statham Machinery &c. Co. v. Howard Constr. Co., 160 Ga. App. 466, 467 (287 SE2d 249) (1981). However, the statute was amended to read as it is set out in the majority opinion. The statute now requires that notice be filed in every case. The materialman’s lien statute is in derogation of the common law; it must be complied with strictly. Allied Elec. Contractors v. Kern & Co., 184 Ga. App. 747 (362 SE2d 452) (1987).
Decided October 5, 1990.
George P. Graves, for appellant.
David R. Rogers, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Judge Beasley joins in this special concurrence.