The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued two decisions in January 2025 addressing certain actions statutorily required for the perfection of liens under the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963 (“Mechanics’ Lien Law”). Although the cases were decided along different lines and, in one of the case, substantial compliance with the Mechanics’ Lien Law was found sufficient, they both serve as clear reminders that strictly adhering to the letter of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, and all other jurisdictions’ lien laws, is an absolute must. Any failure to strictly comply with the statutory procedures invites a challenge to a lien’s validity, increasing the legal costs a claimant is forced to incur, and may invalidate a lien, striping a claimant of security for the amounts they may be undeniably due and owed.
First, on January 7, 2025, the Superior Court, in Celtic Conversions, LLC v. Birch Tree Investments, LLC[1], affirmed the trial court’s finding that Celtic’s lien was invalid because the lien was not filed until after the property where the work was completed was sold by the owner who had hired Celtic to an “innocent purchaser.” Notably, the Mechanics’ Lien Law plainly states that, “if the property be conveyed in good faith and for a valuable consideration prior to the filing of a claim for alterations or repairs, the lien shall be wholly lost.” 49. P.S. § 1303(c). Thus, Celtic’s filing of the lien was a clear failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. In fact, the trial court found that Celtic had wholly ignored the Mechanics’ Lien Law, “ensnaring an innocent purchaser in three years of litigation,” and awarded the property owner its attorneys’ fees to defend against what the trail court held was an arbitrary lien. The Superior Court upheld the award of attorneys’ fees.
Second, on January 24, 2025, the Superior Court, in Clark Property Maintenance, LLC v. Peak Real Estate Solutions[2], reversed the trial court’s decision striking Clark Property Maintenance’s (“CPM”) lien for failure to file an affidavit of services in strict compliance with the Mechanic’s Lien Law. CPM had filed a sheriff’s return of service instead of the affidavit of service required by the Mechanics’ Lien Law. The Superior Court held that the filing of a sheriff’s return of service satisfied the notice requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, with notice being strictly required, and substantially complied with the Mechanics’ Lien Law as to the form of notice. Although the trial court was reversed and CPM is now able to proceed in the trial court to prove its entitlement to enforce the lien, its failure to file an affidavit of service in strict compliance with the Mechanics’ Lien Law left its lien subject challenge and forced an appeal that may have otherwise been unnecessary.
Materialmen and mechanics’ lien laws in Pennsylvania and throughout the country require strict adherence to their specific statutory requirements and are filled with traps for the unwary. Proactive development of state specific operational procedures for ensuring compliance with the lien laws throughout performance of the work on each construction project performed is vital to protect a contractor’s lien rights. If you have questions about this article or need guidance in relation to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law, please contact J.T. Gallagher at jtg@hpsslaw.com or call the firm’s Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania office at 610-484-4459.
[1] Celtic Conversions, LLC v. Birch Tree Investments, LLC, No. 2562 EDA 2023, 2025 WL 40590 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2025).
[2] Clark Prop. Maint., LLC v. Peak Real Est. Sols., LLC, 2025 PA Super 15 (Jan. 24, 2025).