Court Opinion

ID: 9628229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:13:25.133698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:00.914375
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice HARNSBERGER,
whom Mr. Chief Justice BLUME joins, concurring.
The point upon which decision in this case turns is the date the ninety-day period commences. There is no question of an extension of that time. The date of completion of the contract to provide a roof was the date the ninety-day limitation began. To merely place materials upon the top of a building does not place a roof upon it. Those materials must be so laid as to protect the building from the elements or else it fails of being a roof. Materials left unsealed and not water tight do not conform to this requirement. When evidence showed weather conditions prevented the earlier sealing and completion of the roof, the delayed date of completion of the contract was sufficiently explained. When the owner elected to call in another contractor to seal the roof that acknowledged the contracted work had not been completed. It also relieved the contractor from any further duty to complete his contract. However, the ultimate completion of the roof by sealing, even though performed by another, started the running of the time within which the filing of the lien was required.
Any prospective purchaser of the property has ample opportunity to protect himself from the lien encumbrance by simple inquiry.