Why Bonding Around a California Mechanics’ Lien can Unintentionally Extend the Deadline to File a Mechanics’ Lien Lawsuit by Six Months or More

William L. Porter Founder & President Specializing in Construction Law, Business Law and Labor Law
Need help with forms? Back to Top

Where California mechanics’ liens are concerned there are few dates, the passages of which are more appreciated by property owners than the last day to file a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics’ lien.  This is because unless the deadline to file a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanics lien has been extended by a properly drafted and notarized “Notice of Credit” which has been duly recorded with the County Recorder in the county where the property is located, under California Civil Code section 8460, the deadline to file such a lawsuit will expire ninety (90) days after the mechanics lien was recorded.  While exceptions may possibly exist when that date falls on a holiday or weekend, for the most part the 90th day is the absolute drop dead date for filing a suit.  After that date the mechanics’ lien automatically expires and is no longer enforceable.

Often, when a mechanics’ lien is first filed by a subcontractor or supplier the owner instantly demands that the prime contractor record a “Bond to Release Mechanics’ Lien”.  While the owner often has that right to make that request under the prime contract, if the prime contractor can convince the owner to exercise a little patience, such a delay will often yield a much better result.  If the prime contractor can persuade the owner to wait until 90 days have passed since the lien was recorded the lien will of course become unenforceable through the passage of time.  The lien claimant will then no longer have the right to pursue a mechanics’ lien claim against the property.

It is well known to contractors that many subcontractors and suppliers, while extremely good at their trades, will for a variety of reasons ultimately fail to file a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics’ lien within 90 days, thereby losing the mechanics’ lien foreclosure rights against the owner and his property.  As far as the contractor and owner should be concerned, the mechanics lien problem is then solved.

A different rule applies however when the prime contractor is forced by the owner to supply a mechanics’ lien release bond.  In such a case the deadline to file a lawsuit is extended by another six months.  Moreover, in the event the contractor fails to properly notify the lien claimant that the release bond has been recorded, the deadline to file suit continues, perhaps indefinitely, until six months after the notice is properly given.  The relevant statute on the subject is Civil Code Section 8424(d), which states as follows:

“Civil Code 8424(d)):  A person that obtains and records a lien release bond shall give notice to the claimant. The notice shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8100) of Title 1 and shall include a copy of the bond. Failure to give the notice required by this section does not affect the validity of the bond, but the statute of limitations for an action on the bond is tolled until notice is given. The claimant shall commence an action on the bond within six months after notice is given.”

Under the statute, if the owner had simply waited until 90 days had passed, there would be no need for the lien release bond. The lien would simply have expired under Civil Code section 8460. There would also be no new right to a new claim on which to sue based on the lien release bond.  There would be no need to give notice and wait an additional six months to see if the new six month deadline to file suit would be missed.

An even more unfortunate situation can arise when the contractor does not wait for the 90 days to pass and bonds around the mechanics’ lien and fails to properly inform the lien claimant that he has in fact bonded around the mechanics lien.  If the lien claimant does not file its suit within 90 days after the lien was recorded, it may ultimately believe that it has missed its deadline. In truth though, a close reading of Civil Code section 8424(d) gives rise to a very good argument that the lien claimant still has a right to bring suit on the mechanics lien release bond and will maintain its rights to sue on the lien release bond until six months after it has been notified that the lien release bond exists. This could go on indefinitely. The prime contractor may be caught in the unfortunate dilemma of choosing between notifying the lien claimant that the there is a lien release bond and that the lien claimant has six more months to sue or paying successive indefinite premiums to renew its lien release bond.

All in all, whereas a little patience could have resulted in all mechanics lien rights expiring after 90 days, the failure to exercise this patience and precipitously bonding around the lien can give rise to additional significant liability exposure and bonding costs for at least six months and potentially longer. The message to be gleaned from this is that it is generally more convenient, cheaper, and less troublesome to wait for the 90 day mechanics lien lawsuit deadline to expire than precipitously jumping the gun and bonding around the mechanics’ lien.

Article written by William L. Porter, Esq. and revised in 2014. Mr. Porter is a principal in The Porter Law Group, Inc. in Sacramento, California. He can be reached by phone at (916) 381-7868.

The Porter Law Newsletter

Get highlights and insights of the most important legal information delivered right to your email inbox.