Brewer Corp. v. Point Center Financial (2014) · DecisionDepot
Brewer Corp. v. Point Center Financial
California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 2014 No. D061665MPublished
Filed 2/27/14 (unmodified opn. attached)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BREWER CORPORATION et. al., D061665 Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. 37-2007-74230-CU- BC-CTL) v. ORDER DENYING REHEARING POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC., AND MODIFYING OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
The petition for rehearing is denied.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 31, 2014 be modified as follows:
1. On page two of the opinion the second paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted:
We next conclude that the trial court correctly found that one stop notice claimant's failure to serve a preliminary 20-day notice (preliminary notice) under section 3097 prevented it from recovering under its bonded stop notice. With regard to this stop notice claimant, the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on a potentially dispositive factual issue.
2. On page 20 of the opinion the first paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted:
As we shall explain, we conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that Dynalectric was not required to serve Lender with a preliminary notice. We also conclude that, as to Dynalectric, this matter must be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the
potentially dispositive factual excuse issue regarding when Dynalectric started work on the project. We first address the legal issue presented by the parties and then turn to the factual excuse issue.
3. On page 27 of the opinion the last paragraph which continues onto page 28 is deleted, and the following is inserted:
Because the record reveals that the parties did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the potentially dispositive factual excuse issue, we decline to rule on whether Dynalectric had a factual excuse for not complying with the preliminary notice requirement. In the interest of justice and judicial economy, we remand the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the factual excuse issue. The hearing shall be held within 90 days of the issuance of this modification order. This panel shall retain appellate jurisdiction pending the limited remand to the trial court. Within 30 days after the trial court renders its decision on remand, the parties are to report to this court whether either side wishes appellate review of the decision on remand. If appellate review is desired, the parties are to include a stipulated briefing schedule. If neither side wishes appellate review of the decision on remand, the disposition as to Dynalectric shall be as follows:
If trial court finds in favor of Dynalectric on the existence of a factual excuse for not serving a preliminary notice on Lender, the judgment in favor of Dynalectric is affirmed and Dynalectric is to recover its costs on appeal. Alternatively, if trial court finds against Dynalectric on the existence of a factual excuse, the judgment in favor of Dynalectric is reversed and Lender is to recover its costs on appeal.
4. On page 32 of the opinion the last paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted:
With regard to Dynalectric, the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. In the interest of justice and judicial economy, this panel retains appellate jurisdiction pending this limited remand to the trial court. The evidentiary hearing shall be held within 90 days of the issuance of this modification order. Within 30 days after the trial court renders its decision on remand, the parties are to report to this court whether either side wishes appellate review of the decision on remand. If appellate review is desired, the parties are to include a stipulated briefing schedule. If neither side wishes appellate review of the decision on remand, the disposition as to Dynalectric shall be as follows:
If trial court finds in favor of Dynalectric on the existence of a factual excuse for not serving a preliminary notice on Lender, the judgment in favor of Dynalectric is affirmed and Dynalectric is to recover its costs on appeal.
2
Alternatively, if trial court finds against Dynalectric on the existence of a factual excuse, the judgment in favor of Dynalectric is reversed and Lender is to recover its costs on appeal.
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties
3
Filed 1/31/14 (unmodified version)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BREWER CORPORATION et. al., D061665
Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2007-74230-CU- BC-CTL) v.
POINT CENTER FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William R.
Nevitt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Fox Johns Lazar Pekin & Wexler, Michael H. Wexler, R. Gordon Huckins and Dale
A. Martin, for Defendant and Appellant Point Center Financial, Inc.
Marks, Finch, Thornton & Baird, Jason R. Thornton, Jon F. Gauthier and
Christopher R. Sillari; Hoyt Law Firm and Kenneth C. Hoyt for Plaintiffs and Respondents
Brewer Corporation and Division 8.
Lincoln, Gustafson & Cercos and Theodore R. Cercos for Plaintiff and Respondent
Brady Company/San Diego, Inc.
Niddrie Fish & Addams and David A. Niddrie for Respondents.
Law Offices of Murray M. Helm, Jr., and Murray M. Helm, Jr., for Respondent
Dynalectric Company.
In this case, we are required to interpret several stop notice statutes. (Former Civ.
fn. 5.) That the Familian court decided an issue of first impression does not render its result
suspect. As one commentator noted, "because the stop notice remedy is so highly effective
for stop notice claimants, construction lenders have made several attempts over the years to
structure a construction loan that effectively circumvents it." (Campbell, Stop Notice Risks
for Construction Lenders (Jan., 2010) Los Angeles Lawyer, at p. 18.)
Lender argues that part of the money preallocated and disbursed to it under the terms
of the construction loan agreement was "earned," meaning the money constituted
reimbursements for out-of-pocket costs and expenses associated with locating lenders,
raising funds, paying salaries, etc. It also argued that "the funds paid to [it] and the private
party lenders were used to satisfy legitimate costs of construction." Lender's contention is
supported by one commentator who advocates for a more "tailored approach" that
"unearned prepayments, if proved as a matter of fact, do not qualify as sums earned and
paid before receipt of the bonded stop notice, and do not reduce the fund available to the
stop notice claimant." (20 No. 2 Miller & Starr, Real Estate Newsalert 1 (Nov. 2009).) On
the other hand, Respondents suggest that all distributions to Lender out of the construction
loan fund were "unearned," meaning they constituted profits. The parties conceded,
however, that the issue whether the distributions Lender received were earned or unearned
16
was never argued below. As the case was not tried on this theory, it is impossible for us to
address it.
In any event, we conclude that labeling the disbursements Lender received as earned
versus unearned is of little consequence. Our high court made it clear in Connolly, over 36
years ago, that monies in a construction loan fund are intended to pay construction costs.
(Connolly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 807, 820, 825.) It held that a construction loan fund is
"not available for ordinary expenses." (Id. at p. 820.) Additionally, when served upon the
construction lender a stop notice "attaches only to funds previously committed to finance
construction of the improvement (section 3162)." (Id. at p. 826.) Here, the parties agreed in
the joint trial readiness conference report that the full amount of the loan was for the
purpose of "fund[ing] the subject construction project." Although Lender argued in its reply
brief that "the funds paid to [it] and the private party lenders were used to satisfy legitimate
costs of construction," it cited absolutely no evidence to support this statement.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Familian court did not invalidate the pre-allocation
of construction loan funds by lenders. Lenders remain free to draft construction loan
agreements to give themselves a contractual right to priority. It is only in situations, such as
the one presented here that lenders' contractual priority cedes to a stop notice claimants'
statutory priority, allowing a court to reach back to funds a lender has disbursed to itself as a
source to pay stop notice claimants.
17
2. Familian Is Not Distinguishable
Assuming we will follow the Familian analysis, Lender alternatively argues that the
judgment in favor of Respondents should be reversed based on the distinguishable facts of
this case.
Lender first points out that in Familian, the lending bank foreclosed on its trust deed
(Familian, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 683); thus, it obtained a double recovery by
obtaining the real property and that value added to the property by the stop notice claimants'
improvements. In contrast here, the property was encumbered by a "super-priority" first
trust deed that was foreclosed thereby wiping out the Lender's first trust deed. Accordingly,
Lender asserts that it recovered nothing and was not unjustly enriched by the stop notice
claimants' contributions to the project.
Stated differently, Lender asserts that the stop notice claimants should not be entitled
to statutory priority under section 3166 because it suffered a loss, rather than a gain. We
disagree as Lender's argument makes application of section 3166 priority dependent upon
equitable principles. The Legislature eliminated the judicially developed equitable lien
remedy and confined recovery to statutory mechanics' lien and stop notice procedures when
it enacted section 3264. (Sofias v. Bank of America (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 583, 586.) The
Familian court acknowledged the existence of section 3264 (Familian, supra, 213
Cal.App.3d at pp. 685-686) and unequivocally held that "[l]enders cannot avoid a section
3166 priority by private agreement." (Id. at p. 686.) Contrary to Lender's assertion, the
theme in Familian was not the avoidance of unjust enrichment. Simply put, whether a
18
lender forecloses on its trust deed or ultimately realizes a gain or loss is not relevant to
application of section 3166.
Lender next claims that Familian is distinguishable because the lending bank
segregated the funds to pay itself from the remainder of the loan funds by setting up
preallocated accounts. While the Familian court articulated the issue presented as whether
"a secured construction lender [can] defeat a bonded stop notice claimant's statutory priority
to construction loan proceeds by segregating the fund into preallocated accounts and
thereafter deducting charges and interest as accrued[,]" the segregation of the funds into
different accounts did not factor into its analysis. (Familian, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at
p. 683.) Instead, the Familian court broadly held that "a preallocation of construction loan
funds and periodic disbursements to the lender are assignments within the meaning of
section 3166." (Id. at p. 688.) Similarly here, the parties agreed that Lender could
preallocate construction loan funds to pay interest and loan fees and disburse to itself the
construction loan funds to pay accrued interest on the loan. Thus, the lack of segregated
accounts does not distinguish the instant case from Familian.
Finally, Lender makes a number of arguments directed at specific portions of the trial
court's award, contending that the trial court went beyond the facts and holding of Familian.
Lender claims the trial court erred when it awarded Respondents the total amount of interest
paid on the loan because it received a small interest payment and the third-party investors
received the rest. Lender asserts we should reverse that portion of the judgment reflecting
interest paid to the third-party investors, approximately $1,012,200. Lender's argument
misses the point.
19
The purpose of section 3166 is to afford stop notice claimants priority over a
construction lender's assignment of construction funds. (See Familian, supra, 213
Cal.App.3d at p. 687.) The loan servicing agreements that Lender entered into with each of
the third-party investors constituted another type of assignment. Under the loan servicing
agreements Lender paid itself interest out of the construction loan funds and later disbursed
the majority of the interest payments to the third-party investors. The fact Lender did not
retain the interest payments is irrelevant to the Familian analysis. Additionally, we note
that the loan servicing agreements contain an indemnity clause whereby each third-party
investor agreed to indemnify Lender to the extent of the fractional interest of each third-
party investor for any claims incurred by Lender not covered by insurance so long as the
Lender acted in good faith and without gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Lender also complains the trial court improperly awarded Respondents a loan
servicing fee paid to Lender by the third-party investors in the amount of about $136,380.
Lender claims that the third-party investors paid the fee. We reject this argument as it
ignores that Lender was paid its loan servicing fee via monthly deductions from payments
received from the owner. Next, Lender asserts the trial court improperly awarded
Respondents $1,540 representing tax service and credit report charges because these
amounts were reimbursements from the owner and not profits. The trial court made a
finding that these charges should be part of the Familian award because they came out of
the construction loan funds. It is irrelevant that Lender did not profit.
20
Lastly, Lender claims the trial court erred in awarding Respondents $19,500,
representing the amount of fees paid to Lender by the owner in connection with a $390,000
supplemental loan to owner for the purpose of paying city permit fees, noting that the owner
paid off the loan before the service of the first stop notice. We disagree. Trial testimony
established that the owner paid Lender a loan fee of $476,875 at closing and that Lender
later loaned $390,000 of the fee back to the owner to pay for permits required to allow the
start of construction. The supplemental loan was secured by a trust deed on the same
property enhanced by Respondents' labor, equipment and material. This evidence
establishes that the loan was for the purpose of financing the construction of improvements
on the property. Thus, the trial court properly included the loan fee from this supplemental
loan as part of its Familian award.
III. Dynalectric Issue
Service of a preliminary 20-day notice (preliminary notice) is required to enforce a
mechanic's lien or stop notice claim. (§ 3097, subds. (a)-(b) [a preliminary notice is "a
necessary prerequisite to the validity of any claim of lien"].) A preliminary notice must be
served within 20 days after the claimant has begun providing labor, services, equipment, or
material for which a mechanic's lien or stop notice claim will be made. (§ 3097, subd. (d).)
The Legislature imposed the notice requirement to alert property owners and lenders "to the
fact that the property or funds involved might be subject to claims arising from contracts to
which they were not parties and would otherwise have no knowledge." (Romak Iron Works
v. Prudential Ins. Co. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 767, 778.)
21
The Legislature intended "to exact strict compliance with the preliminary notice
requirement." (Ibid.; IGA Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Manufacturers Bank (1982) 130
Cal.App.3d 699, 703-704 [same].)
Lender contends the trial court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that
Dynalectric, a direct contractor, was not required to serve Lender with a preliminary notice
under subdivision (b) of section 3097 (§ 3097(b)) as a condition to maintaining its stop
notice claim because service of a preliminary notice by a stop notice claimant under a direct
contract with the owner is required unless the claimant is the general contractor.
Dynalectric asserts the plain language of subdivision (a) of section 3097 (§ 3097(a))
exempted it from serving a preliminary notice on Lender.
Dynalectric also contends we need not interpret section 3097 because, even if it was
not exempt from the preliminary notice requirement under section 3097, it was not required
to serve a preliminary notice on Lender because the undisputed facts establish it
commenced work before Lender recorded its construction loan trust deed. In other words,
Dynalectric contends it had a factual excuse for not serving a preliminary notice on Lender.
(Kodiak Industries, Inc. v. Ellis (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 75, 83-85 [a private work lender
stop notice claimant who commences work on a project before the construction loan trust
deed is recorded is not required to serve the construction lender with a preliminary notice
under section 3097] (Kodiak).) Assuming we agree with Dynalectric that the undisputed
facts establish it commenced work before Lender recorded its construction loan trust deed,
then Dynalectric claims the judgment in its favor can be affirmed on this alternative ground.
22
As we shall explain, we conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law when it
concluded that Dynalectric was not required to serve Lender with a preliminary notice.
We also conclude that the judgment in favor of Dynalectric should be provisionally reversed
and the matter remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the potentially
dispositive factual excuse issue regarding when Dynalectric started work on the project.
We first address the legal issue presented by the parties and then turn to the factual excuse
issue.
A. Legal Issue
It is undisputed that Dynalectric was a contractor with a direct contract with the
owner of the project and that it did not serve Lender with a preliminary notice. In a
nutshell, Lender claims Dynalectric was required to serve a preliminary notice under section
3097(b) because it was a direct contractor and not an exempt general contractor.
Dynalectric asserts the plain language of section 3097(a) exempted it from serving a
preliminary notice on Lender and, when properly interpreted, it was also exempt under
section 3097(b).
In interpreting section 3097 we apply the general rules of statutory interpretation.
(Ante, pt. II.B.1.) We start with the plain language of the statute. In relevant part, section
3097 provides that a preliminary notice must be given before filing a stop notice under the
following circumstances:
"(a) Except one under direct contract with the owner . . . every person who furnishes labor, service, equipment, or material [to a work of improvement] shall, as a necessary prerequisite to the validity of any . . . notice to withhold, cause to be given to the owner or reputed owner, to the original contractor, or reputed contractor, and to the
23
construction lender, if any, or to the reputed construction lender, if any, a written preliminary notice as prescribed by this section.
"(b) Except the contractor . . . all persons who have a direct contract with the owner and who furnish labor, service, equipment, or material [to a work of improvement] shall, as a necessary prerequisite to the validity . . . of a notice to withhold, cause to be given to the construction lender, if any, or to the reputed construction lender, if any, a written preliminary notice as prescribed by this section." (Italics added.)
The term " '[o]riginal contractor' " used in section 3097(a) is defined as "any
contractor who has a direct contractual relationship with the owner." (§ 3095.) The term
"the contractor" used in section 3097(b) is not defined. Accordingly, "the contractor" must
mean something different than an original contractor with a direct contractual relationship
with the owner.
Taking the liberty to rearrange the wording of these subdivisions and substitute "any
contractor who has a direct contractual relationship with the owner" for the term "original
contractor," section 3097(a) states: every person who furnishes labor, etc. to a work of
improvement, except one under direct contract with the owner, must give notice to a lender
or any contractor who has a direct contractual relationship with the owner. In turn, section
3097(b) states: all persons having a direct contract with the owner that furnishes labor, etc.
to a work of improvement, except the contractor, must give the notice to the lender. The
subdivisions are plainly different. Section 3097(a) requires notice to a lender or any other
contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with the owner, while section 3097(b)
requires notice only to a lender.
We now take the rearranged subdivisions to determine whether Dynalectric, a person
that furnished labor etc. through a direct contract with the owner, was required to serve a
24
preliminary notice on Lender under either section 3097(a) or (b). Plainly, and as conceded
by Lender, section 3097(a) did not require such notice because Dynalectric had a direct
contractual relationship with the owner. Thus, we turn to section 3097(b).
Again, our rearranged section 3097(b) states: all persons having a direct contract
with the owner that furnishes labor, etc. to a work of improvement, except the contractor,
must give the notice to the lender. Dynalectric qualifies as a person having a direct contract
with the owner; thus, it was required to give notice to the lender under section 3097(b)
unless it qualified as "the contractor."
Interpreting the predecessor to section 3097, the court in Korherr v. Bumb (9th Cir.,
1958) 262 F.2d 157, interpreted the term "the contractor" to refer to "the general or prime
contractor." (Id. at p. 161.) Other courts have adopted this interpretation. (Kodiak, supra,
185 Cal.App.3d at p. 82, fn. 3 [the contractor "has sensibly been construed to mean the
general or prime contractor for the entire project"]; Westfour Corp. v. California First Bank
(1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1561 [same]; Shady Tree Farms v. Omni Financial (2012) 206
Cal.App.4th 131, 138 [same] (Shady Tree).) As noted by the Shady Tree court, section
3097(b) "refers to the contractor rather than a contractor. The use of 'the' indicates a single
person, i.e., the prime or general contractor for the project, not multiple contractors, i.e., the
subcontractors or others with direct contracts with the owner." (Shady Tree, supra, at
p. 138.) Accordingly, as a person having a direct contract with the owner, Dynalectric was
required to give notice to Lender under section 3097(b) because it was not the general or
prime contractor on the project.
25
Recent amendments to the mechanic's lien laws support this interpretation. The
Legislature indicated that the 2010 amendments were intended to, among other things,
"recodify, reorganize, and clarify the mechanics lien statute; modernize terminology and
eliminate inconsistencies in language; make provisions more readable and easier to use;
enact separate provisions for private and public works; [and] modernize and streamline
existing notice requirements." (Sen. Jud. Com., analysis of Sen. Bill No. 189 (2009-2010
Reg. Sess.) at p. 1, as amended Dec. 15, 2009 (Sen. Jud. Com. Analysis); available at
0200/sb_189_cfa_20100111_183140_sen_comm.html> [as of Jan. 31, 2014].) The
California Law Revision Commission "placed its highest priority on drafting a
'nonsubstantive reorganization of the existing mechanics lien statute that would modernize
and clarify existing law.' " (Id. at p. 2.) The Legislature noted that section 3097(b)
"contain[ed] an ambiguity relating to whether a general contractor must give preliminary
notice to a construction lender on a private work." (Id. at p. 4.) The bill clarified "that a
general contractor must give preliminary notice to a construction lender on a private work."
(Ibid.)
Thus, the Legislature amended section 3097 to state that a claimant "shall give
preliminary notice to the following persons: [¶] (1) The owner or reputed owner.
[¶] (2) The direct contractor or reputed direct contractor to which the claimant provides
work, either directly or through one or more subcontractors. [¶] (3) The construction lender
or reputed construction lender, if any." (Current § 8200, subd. (a).) "Notwithstanding the
foregoing subdivisions: [¶] (1) A laborer is not required to give preliminary notice. [¶] (2) A
26
claimant with a direct contractual relationship with an owner or reputed owner is required
to give preliminary notice only to the construction lender or reputed construction lender, if
any." (Current § 8200, subd. (e), italics added.)
Once again, our rearranged section 3097(b) states: all persons having a direct
contract with the owner that furnishes labor, etc. to a work of improvement, except the
contractor, must give the notice to the lender. The ambiguity referred to in the Senate
Judicial Commission Analysis is the reference to "the contractor" in section 3097(b) as this
term was eliminated from the amended statute. (See current § 8200.) The current statute
now provides that "[a] claimant with a direct contractual relationship with an owner or
reputed owner is required to give preliminary notice only to the construction lender or
reputed construction lender, if any." (Current § 8200, subd. (e)(2).) Just as the Legislature
intended, the amended statute resolves the ambiguity in section 3097(b) by providing that
any "direct contractor," including a general contractor, must serve a preliminary notice on
the lender. (Sen. Jud. Com. Analysis, supra, at p. 4.) As further support for this conclusion,
current section 8018 defines "[d]irect contractor" as "a contractor that has a direct
contractual relationship with an owner. A reference in another statute to a 'prime contractor'
in connection with the provisions in this part means a 'direct contractor.' "
In summary, the trial court erred when it concluded that Dynalectric was not required
to serve a preliminary notice on Lender.
27
B. Factual Excuse Issue
1. Facts
Before trial, Lender moved for nonsuit or a partial judgment under Code of Civil
Procedure section 631.8 to determine the validity of Dynalectric's stop notice claim on
undisputed facts. Lender argued that, as a matter of law, Dynalectric was required to serve
Lender a preliminary notice, Dynalectric did not do so and was barred from pursuing a stop
notice claim against Lender. In opposition to the motion, Dynalectric argued it was not
required to serve Lender a preliminary notice because the plain language of section 3097(a)
and (b) exempted it from serving a preliminary notice on Lender. Dynalectric also asserted
a factual defense that it was not required to serve a preliminary notice because there was no
lender when it began work on the project.
At the hearing on the motion, Lender presented an oral reply to Dynalectric's
opposition that addressed the legal issue, but not the factual issue of when Dynalectric
began work on the project. Lender later admitted it "was nowhere on the scene" in 2004
when Dynalectric executed a letter of intent with the owner, but that the initial work
Dynalectric did was of "no consequence" because it pertained to a "separate work of
improvement." Lender claimed that another judge found that the "current work of
improvement" started a few weeks before it recorded its trust deed in June 2006, that
Dynalectric first started work under the contract in September 2006, and that Dynalectric
prepared its preliminary notice 20 days after it started work, but never served Lender.
Lender asserted that even if the court had "question of fact" regarding whether Dynalectric
was excused from the preliminary notice requirement, it could still rule on the legal issue.
28
Thereafter, the trial court denied Lender's motion to find Dynalectric's stop notice
claim invalid. The court later clarified that it ruled on the legal issue of whether Dynalectric
was required to file a preliminary notice on Lender, not the factual issue. Lender filed a
"Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Motion Re Dynalectric's Statutory Duty to Serve a
Preliminary Notice on Point Center; for Renewal of Prior Motion as to Said Duty Issue; For
Relief Based on Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect; For a
Determination, as a Motion in Limine, that Dynalectric's Contention that it was Excused for
Factual Reasons from Serving a Preliminary Notice on Point Center Raises a Triable Issue
of Fact; and for Related Relief" (the reconsideration motion). Among other things, Lender
explained during argument that its in limine motion requested that the trial court reserve for
trial any determination on the factual issue regarding whether Dynalectric was excused from
serving a preliminary notice on Lender. The trial court denied the reconsideration motion.
2. Analysis
In its opening brief, Lender focused exclusively on the trial court's ruling on the legal
issue. Seizing on the fact Lender failed to argue the factual excuse issue as a basis for
reversing the trial court's ruling, Dynalectric contends Lender presented no evidence
showing the existence of a factual dispute regarding when Dynalectric started work on the
project, that Lender had a full and fair opportunity to present such evidence and the trial
court's ruling in Dynalectric's favor should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the
undisputed facts show Dynalectric commenced work on the project before Lender recorded
its construction loan trust deed. Alternatively, should we conclude that triable issues of fact
remain unresolved, Dynalectric requests that we remand the matter for further proceedings.
29
The parties impliedly agree that a ruling on the factual excuse issue potentially moots
the legal issue that we addressed above. (Ante, pt. III.A.) Our review of the record reveals,
however, that Lender did not have the opportunity to present evidence on the factual excuse
issue. Dynalectric raised the factual excuse issue in its opposition to Lender's motion and
presented a declaration to support its argument. Lender provided an oral reply at the
hearing on the motion. It asserted the court could rule on the legal issue even if factual
questions existed regarding whether Dynalectric was excused from the preliminary notice
requirement. After the trial court ruled in Dynalectric's favor on the legal issue, Lender
filed its multi-faceted reconsideration motion which argued that Dynalectric's factual excuse
issue should be tried. Lender stated during oral argument on the reconsideration motion that
it had a number of exhibits and witnesses to address the factual excuse issue. Although
Dynalectric chides Lender for not presenting this evidence as part of its reconsideration
motion, Lender was not required to do so because the court made no factual determination
that was subject to reconsideration. Lender argued below that the factual excuse issue
needed to be tried. Dynalectric agrees as it alternatively argued on appeal that we could
remand the matter for further proceedings.
Because the record reveals that the parties did not have a full and fair opportunity to
litigate the potentially dispositive factual excuse issue, we decline to rule on whether
Dynalectric had a factual excuse for not complying with the preliminary notice requirement.
In the interest of justice, we provisionally reverse the judgment in favor of Dynalectric and
remand the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on when Dynalectric started
work on the project. If trial court finds in favor of Dynalectric on the existence of a factual
30
excuse for not serving a preliminary notice on Lender the judgment in favor of Dynalectric
should be affirmed. Alternatively, if trial court finds against Dynalectric on the existence of
a factual excuse, the judgment in favor of Dynalectric should be reversed.
IV. Motion Regarding Division 8
A. Facts
On April 10, 2008, Division 8 served Lender with its bonded stop notice and filed a
complaint to foreclose its mechanic's lien on the project. In May 2008, Division 8 filed a
first amended complaint which added a stop notice claim against Lender. In July 2008,
Division 8 served its first amended complaint on Lender. Division 8, however, never served
Lender with a notice of the commencement of its stop notice action within five days after
filing its complaint as required by section 3172.
During trial, Lender orally moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 for
entry of judgment against Division 8 for Division 8's failure to serve a notice of
commencement of action under section 3172. The trial court considered a supplemental
trial brief filed by Lender and heard oral argument. Upon conclusion of the argument, the
trial court orally denied Lender's motion, finding that Division 8 substantially complied with
the notice of commencement requirements and, even if it had not, that Lender was not
prejudiced by Division 8's failure to serve the notice.
B. Analysis
An action to enforce a stop notice must be commenced between 10 and 90 days after
filing of the stop notice. (§ 3172; current § 8550, subd. (a)-(c).) Commencement of the
action within the 90-day period is a necessary step in perfecting a stop notice claimant's
31
right to the funds held by the lender. If the action is filed late, the notice is no longer
effective and the lender must release the funds previously held pursuant to the stop notice.
(§ 3172; current § 8550, subd. (d).) Within five days after filing an action to enforce the
stop notice, the claimant "shall" give notice of the commencement of the action to the same
persons who have received the stop notice. (§ 3172; current § 8550, subd. (e).)
Lender contends the trial court erred when it refused to enter judgment in its favor
based on Division 8's failure to ever serve a notice of the commencement of its stop notice
action because the use of the word "shall" in the statute requires mandatory compliance.
We disagree.
Again, we are faced with a question of statutory interpretation subject to de novo
review. (Bialo v. Western Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 76-77.) "[T]here is
no simple, mechanical test for determining whether a [statutory] provision should be given
'directory' or 'mandatory' effect." (Morris v. County of Marin (1977) 18 Cal.3d 901, 909.)
Generally, "requirements relating to the time within which an act must be done are directory
rather than mandatory or jurisdictional, unless a contrary [legislative] intent is clearly
expressed." (Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 410.) "In ascertaining probable
intent, California courts have expressed a variety of tests. In some cases, focus has been
directed at the likely consequences of holding a particular time limitation mandatory, in an
attempt to ascertain whether those consequences would defeat or promote the purpose of the
enactment. [Citations.] Other cases have suggested that a time limitation is deemed merely
directory 'unless a consequence or penalty is provided for failure to do the act within the
time commanded.' " (Ibid.)
32
Looking at the language of section 3172, the notice of commencement of action is
not required until after the lender has already been served with a stop notice action. Thus,
the purpose of the notice of commencement of action does not serve to "notify" the lender
of the pending stop notice. Instead, the notice of commencement of action is more likely
designed as a safeguard to alert persons withholding funds pursuant to a stop notice that the
funds are claimed (per the commenced stop notice action) and prevent premature release of
the funds.
We are not the first court to come to this conclusion. Almost 50 years ago, the court
in Sunlight Electric Supply Company v. McKee (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 47 (Sunlight)
similarly interpreted former Code of Civil Procedure section 1197.1, subdivision (b), the
predecessor provision to the language at issue in section 3172. (See Stats. 1967 (Reg.
Session), ch. 542, § 1, p. 1891.) The Sunlight court concluded that the notice of
commencement of action requirement is not jurisdictional, but merely directory unless some
detriment can be shown to have resulted from failure to file the notice within the five days.
(Sunlight, supra, at p. 51.) It explained that "[t]he various steps and time requirements as to
filings and services of notice are for the purpose of providing protective measures and a
necessary warning to those to whom notice is to be given or upon whom service is to be
made. If the time provisions are not complied with and as a consequence injury results to
the entity or a legal claimant under the entity which service is required then it would stand
to reason that a strict compliance with the requirement could properly be insisted upon by
the servicee. But if no right of the servicee or any person or entity who could legally claim
under the servicee is adversely affected by failure to comply with the time for service
33
requirement, then the requirement unless made so by specific mandate, is not a
jurisdictional factor requiring the collapse of any remedy of which such notice or service
forms a part." (Sunlight, supra, at p. 50.)
While Lender is correct that Sunlight is distinguishable because there a notice of
commencement of action was filed 14 days late which led the trial court to find substantial
compliance with the statute. (Sunlight, supra, 226 Cal.App.2d at p. 49.) In contrast, here, a
notice was never filed. We believe this to be a distinction without a difference because the
critical aspect of the Sunlight decision, with which we agree, is that the notice of
commencement of action requirement is directory in the absence of prejudice. (Id. at p. 50.)
Here, Lender does not allege it suffered any prejudice as a result of Division 8's failure to
give it a notice of the commencement of the action. The evidence shows that Lender
suffered no prejudice because it had no undisbursed construction funds left in its control
when Division 8 served Lender its bonded stop notice. Thus, Division 8's failure to give
Lender the notice of commencement of action after it served Lender its stop notice action
resulted in no prejudice as it had no funds to release.
Finally, we reject Lender's assertion that Sunlight has been superseded by more
recent strict compliance cases. The cases Lender relies on are inapposite because they
address the section 3097 preliminary notice that is required prior to a contractor's
performance of work on a project site. (Harold L. James v. Five Points Ranch, Inc. (1984)
158 Cal.App.3d 1, 3-7; Shady Tree, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at pp. 135-139.) As discussed
above, the unambiguous language of section 3097 indicates that the preliminary notice is a
necessary prerequisite to the validity of the lien. (Ante, pt. III.A.)
34
DISPOSITION
The judgments in favor of respondents Brady, Division 8 and Brewer are affirmed.
These respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.
The judgment in favor of Dynalectric is provisionally reversed and the matter is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in
this opinion. If trial court finds in favor of Dynalectric on the existence of a factual excuse
for not serving a preliminary notice on Lender, the judgment in favor of Dynalectric is
affirmed and Dynalectric is to recover its costs on appeal. Alternatively, if trial court finds
against Dynalectric on the existence of a factual excuse, the judgment in favor of
Dynalectric is reversed and Lender is to recover its costs on appeal.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
35
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a construction lender's preallocation and disbursement of loan funds to itself for interest and fees constitutes an assignment under Civil Code section 3166, which is subordinate to the claims of stop notice claimants. Additionally, the court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if a specific claimant had a factual excuse for failing to serve a preliminary notice.
Issues
Whether a construction lender's preallocation of loan funds for interest and fees constitutes an assignment subordinate to stop notice claims under Civil Code section 3166.
Whether a stop notice claimant's failure to serve a preliminary 20-day notice under section 3097 bars recovery under a bonded stop notice.
Whether a stop notice claimant's failure to provide notice of the commencement of an action under section 3172 bars recovery absent prejudice to the lender.
Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We next conclude that the trial court correctly found that one stop notice claimant's failure to serve a preliminary 20-day notice (preliminary notice) under section 3097 prevented it from recovering under its bonded stop notice.”
“We conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that Dynalectric was not required to serve Lender with a preliminary notice.”