Court Opinion

ID: 9711335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:29:37.621554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.934101
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the judgment in favor of the contractor, but dissent to its reversal of the judgment in favor of the engineer.
The issue concerning the engineer is whether it filed its notice of mechanic’s lien within sixty days of the last date it performed work on the project. I agree with the law cited by the majority to the effect that this time period cannot be extended by virtue of gratuitous or incidental work performed after the work called for has been completed or abandoned.
I find, however, that this was not the case here. The trial court specifically found that the developer had requested the engineer to perform additional services beyond those called for in the $15,000 written contract, that such services had been performed by the engineer, and that it was the developer, through its attorney, that requested the engineer to again perform services to determine the condition of the project and what needed to be done to complete it. In response to that request the engineer spent its time and effort reviewing the plans and specifications and communicating with the Utility Center and Surveyor’s office to determine what utilities had been completed and inspected. Thus, at the developer’s special instance and request, the engineer recommenced work on the project until it was again told that the developer would not pay for its services. The evidence supports these findings. Accordingly, I would find that the lien notice filed within sixty days of the furnishing of these further requested services was timely. I would therefore affirm the judgment in its entirety.