Court Opinion

ID: 9942648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 17:10:57.844194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:22.730442
License: Public Domain

J-A01012-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  BLOOMING GLEN CONTRACTORS,                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  INC.                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 968 EDA 2023
  GREEN FIG LAND, LLC                          :

                Appeal from the Order Entered March 1, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
                              2022-09043-ML

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2024

       Blooming Glen Contractors, Inc. (Blooming Glen/Claimant) appeals from

the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, sustaining

the preliminary objections filed by Appellee, Green Fig Land, LLC (Green Fig),

and striking Blooming Glen’s Mechanics’ Lien claim. After careful review, we

affirm.

       Blooming Glen is a Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered in

Skippack, that performs civil construction services, including full-service site

contracting for water and wastewater services.         This matter is one of four

related Mechanics’ Lien claims Blooming Glen filed, in November 2022,

relating to its removal and hauling of sludge and liquid for a decommissioning

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01012-24

project, see infra at 2, located at 800 Swedesford Road (a/k/a 948

Swedesford Road) in Malvern.1 In its claim, Blooming Glen alleged that it is a

“subcontractor” with respect to property identified as “UPI 42-3-130.2, Parcel

ID 4203 01302300 [(Property)]”2 and that “the fee simple owner of the

Property is Respondent Green Fig Land[,] LLC.” Statement of Mechanics’ Lien

Claim, 11/14/22, at ¶ 2-4.

       In October 2021, East Whiteland Township Zoning Hearing Board

(Board) granted an application for several variances for the Property, in

connection with Green Fig’s intended construction of a data center (Data

Center) on the Property.         See Preliminary Objections filed by Green Fig,

1/19/23, at ¶ 24 (Green Fig also sought “further variance relief with respect

to . . . the parcels identified as UPI Nos. 42-3-128, 42-3-130, 42-3-130.1[,]

and 42-3-130.2— for, among other things, an extension of the previously

granted use variance for a data center to allow additional building square

footage[.]”) (emphasis added).           The Board’s grant of the variances was

conditioned on Green Fig completing the “Malvern Hunt Decommissioning

Project” (Project) at 800 Swedesford Road in East Whiteland. Statement of

Mechanics’ Lien Claim, 11/14/22, at ¶ 8. The Project consisted of diverting

____________________________________________

1 See Blooming Glen Formal Notice of Intent to File Mechanics’ Lien Claim
Letter, 9/8/22, at ¶ 5 (noting that property claimed to be subject to lien “is
800 Swedesford Road (a/k/a 948 Swedesford Road)).”

2 Blooming Glen avers in its Statement of Mechanics’ Lien Claim that there is

“no known street address” for the Property. Statement of Mechanics’ Lien
Claim, 11/14/22, at ¶ 3.

                                           -2-
J-A01012-24

“existing domestic sewage from [East Whiteland Township’s] Malvern Hunt

Wastewater Treatment Plant to the existing public sewer along Chester Valley

Trail for treatment at Valley Forge Sewer Authority’s [Wastewater Treatment

Plant].” Preliminary Objections filed by Green Fig, 1/19/23, at ¶ 29 (citing

Malvern Hunt Closure Plan, Exhibit L, at 1).

      Blooming    Glen   entered   into   an   agreement   with   Environmental

Engineering & Management Associates, Inc. (EEMA) to serve as the general

contractor on the Project. See Statement of Mechanics’ Lien Claim, 11/14/22,

at ¶ 11. As part of its contract with EEMA, Blooming Glen agreed to “furnish[]

the labor, materials, equipment, and supervision necessary for the removal

and hauling of sludge and liquid [] contained in two wastewater lagoons

located on the Project.” Id. at ¶ 13. When EEMA failed to pay Blooming Glen

for the labor, materials, and equipment it provided on the Project as per their

agreement, Blooming Glen filed the lien claim against Green Fig as “the fee

simple interest . . . Owner [of] the Property [and] any and all buildings erected

thereupon, and the curtilage appurtenant thereto.” Id. at ¶ 21. In its claim,

Blooming Glen sought the “balance due and owing [] for [the] work [it]

performed on the Project,” id. at ¶ 23, including “the full amount of the labor,

materials, and equipment it provided on the Project,” which totaled

$776,265.52. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 23.

      Blooming Glen claimed that, “as a direct result of [its] work on the

Project[, Green Fig] received a variance on the Property in order to construct

the Data Center[.]” Id. at ¶ 18. Thus, Blooming Glen claimed that its work

                                      -3-
J-A01012-24

“was incidental to and necessary for the construction of [Green Fig’s] Data

Center [and] was part of the improvements performed for the construction of

the Data Center.” Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.

      On January 19, 2023, Green Fig filed preliminary objections to Blooming

Glen’s Mechanics’ Lien claim alleging:        (1) Blooming Glen provided no

materials to the Property; (2) Blooming Glen’s work at the Property was not

performed as an integral part of a construction plan; (3) Blooming Glen’s work

was furnished for a purely public purpose; and (4) the lien claim fails to include

“a detailed statement of the kind and character of the labor or materials

furnished” for which it claims it is owed payment, in contravention of 49 P.S.

§ 1503(6). On March 2, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting Green

Fig’s preliminary objections and striking the Mechanics’ Lien Claim.

      Blooming Glen filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Blooming Glen presents the following issue for our consideration: “Whether

the trial court erred in sustaining [p]reliminary [o]bjections and dismissing

[Blooming Glen’s] Mechanics’ Lien [c]laim with prejudice.” Appellant’s Brief,

at 5. In the argument section of its brief, Blooming Glen narrows the scope

of its broad issue on appeal to the following, “[T]he trial court should have

determined that because Blooming Glen’s work was incidental to the

construction of the Data Center (as specifically permitted by the Lien Law),

Blooming Glen could maintain a mechanics’ lien on the Data Center

property[.]” Appellant’s Brief, at 12.

                                      -4-
J-A01012-24

      Mechanics’ Lien laws “are designed to protect persons who, before being

paid (or fully paid), provide labor or material to improve a piece of property.”

Bricklayers of W. Pa. Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott Dev. Co., 90 A.3d

682, 690 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). Pennsylvania’s “Mechanics’ Lien Law

[(Law)]. . . is a creation in derogation of the common law, and, therefore, any

question of interpretation shall be resolved in favor of strict, narrow

construction.” Wentzel-Applewood Joint Venture v. 801 Market Street

Associates, L.P., 878 A.2d 889, 892 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

“A mechanics[’] lien is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be afforded

to [claimants] who judiciously adhere to the requirements of the [Law.]”

Philadelphia Constr. Services, LCC. v. Domb LLC, 903 A.2d 1262, 1267

(Pa. Super. 2006).

      Our standard of review for an order dismissing a mechanics’ lien claim

based upon preliminary objections is as follows:

      Our standard of review of an order of the trial court overruling or
      [sustaining] preliminary objections is to determine whether the
      trial court committed an error of law. When considering the
      appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary objections, the
      appellate court must apply the same standard as the trial court.

      Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal
      sufficiency of the complaint[.] Preliminary objections which seek
      the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases
      in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be
      unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to
      relief. If any doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be
      sustained, it should be resolved in favor of overruling the
      preliminary objections.

                                     -5-
J-A01012-24

R.A. Greig Equip. Co. v. Mark Erie Hosp., LLC, 305 A.3d 56, 59 (Pa. Super.

2023) (citation omitted).

      Section 1301 of the Law provides:

      (a) General Rule. Except as provided under subsection (b), every
      improvement and the estate or title of the owner in the
      property shall be subject to a lien, to be perfected as herein
      provided, for the payment of all debts due by the owner to the
      contractor or by the contractor to any of his subcontractors for
      labor or materials furnished in the erection or construction, or the
      alteration or repair of the improvement, provided that the amount
      of the claim, other than amounts determined by apportionment
      under section 306(b) of this act, shall exceed five hundred dollars
      ($[]500).

49 P.S. § 1301(a) (emphasis added). See Matternas v. Stehman, 642 A.2d

1120, 1124 (Pa. Super. 1994) (Mechanics’ Lien law was “intended to protect

the prepayment of labor and materials that a contractor invests in another’s

property, by allowing the contractor to obtain a lien interest in the property

involved.”) (emphasis added).

      The Law “expressly provides that property is lienable for excavation

performed incidental to the erection or construction of an improvement.” B.N.

Excavating Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A.L.P., 71 A.3d 274, 279 (Pa. Super. 2013),

(citing 49 P.S. §§ 1301, 1201(1), (12)(a)). “Improvement has been defined

as ‘a permanent addition to real property that enhances its capital value . . .

and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable.’”     Sampson-

Miller Assoc. Cos. v. Landmark Realty Co., 303 A.2d 43, 45 (Pa. Super.

                                     -6-
J-A01012-24

1973), abrogated and overruled in part by B.N. Excavating, supra.3          In

Sampson-Miller Assoc., supra, our Court observed that the General

Assembly intended to “differentiate between situations where groundwork is

performed incidental to construction as opposed to when groundwork is

performed independent of construction.” Id. at 45 (emphasis added). See

also 49 P.S. § 1201(2) (defining “property” as “the improvement, the land

covered thereby . . . belonging to the same legal or equitable owner

reasonably needed for the general purposes thereof”) (emphasis added).

       Preliminary objections to a claim under the Law are limited to a showing

of “exemption or immunity of the property from lien, or for lack of conformity

with [the Mechanics’ Lien Law].” 49 P.S. § 1505. Here, the trial court made

the following findings when it dismissed Blooming Glen’s claim: (1) the work

at issue was not performed on Green Fig’s property; (2) Blooming Glen’s work

was not an integral part of a construction plan, see 49 P.S. § 1301(a); (3)

Blooming Glen’s work was furnished for a purely public purpose, id. at §

1303(b); and (4) the Mechanics’ Lien claim violates 49 P.S. § 1503. See Trial

Court Opinion, 6/1/23, at 1.

       Instantly, the record reveals that Blooming Glen was hired by EEMA to

remove and haul sludge and liquid contained in two wastewater lagoons

____________________________________________

3 B.N. abrogated and overruled Sampson-Miller to the extent that it held
there is no bright-line rule that a mechanics’ lien can never attach to land
absent the presence of an erected structure. Id. at 280.

                                           -7-
J-A01012-24

located at 800 Swedesford Road (a/k/a 948 Swedesford Road).4             See

Blooming Glen Formal Notice of Intent to File Mechanics’ Lien Claim Letter,

9/8/22, at ¶¶ 1-3, 5. While that project may have served a purpose for the

eventual construction of the Data Center, Green Fig is not the owner of the

land on which Blooming Glen performed its services and which forms the basis

for its mechanics’ lien claim. See 49 P.S. § 1201(2) (defining “property”);

see also Letter from Blooming Glen Contractors to EEMA, 9/23.21, at 1

(setting forth Blooming Glen’s “detailed scope of work” for the “Malvern Hunt

Decommissioning Project [at] 948 Swedesford Road, Malvern, Pa[.] 19355.”).

       Moreover, the fact that Green Fig may have received a variance as a

result of Blooming Glen performing services on property owned by a third

party does not make Green Fig subject to a mechanics’ lien on that property.

Matternas, supra. Here, Blooming Glen’s agreement with EEMA to remove

and haul sludge and liquid in two wastewater lagoons for a separate

decommissioning project was performed independent of any construction plan

for the Data Center. As such, the services performed by Blooming Glen on

the Property were not incidental to the construction of the Data Center.

Sampson-Miller Assoc., supra; B.N. Excavating, supra.            Accordingly,

after considering all of Blooming Glen’s well-pled material, factual averments
____________________________________________

4 In addition to removing the storage and treatment lagoons on the township’s

property, the project also included installing landscaping pursuant to a plan
approved by the township. See Preliminary Objections filed by Green Fig,
1/19/23, at ¶ 20.

                                           -8-
J-A01012-24

and all reasonable inference therefrom, we conclude that the trial court

properly granted Green Fig’s preliminary objections and struck the Mechanics’

Lien Claim. R.A. Greig, supra.

     Order affirmed.

Date: 2/21/2024

                                    -9-