{"id":897791,"date":"2020-08-04T14:21:25","date_gmt":"2020-08-04T20:21:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=897791"},"modified":"2020-08-04T14:33:04","modified_gmt":"2020-08-04T20:33:04","slug":"california-mechanics-lien-trends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/","title":{"rendered":"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

People do the darnedest things. The next case,\u00a0Carmel Development Company v. Anderson<\/em>, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract<\/a>, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens<\/a>, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but also covers some new ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carmel Development Company v. Anderson<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Carmel Development Company, Inc. provided design and construction services at a luxury subdivision known as Monterra Ranch located in Monterey under an oral contract with developer Monterra LLC which spanned over more than a decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between 1996 and 2008, Carmel was involved in the infrastructure design and construction of the subdivision including lot design and layout, the location of building envelopes on each lot, water and sewage system layout and design, and roadway design, construction and repair. When roughly half of the lots were developed and sold Monterra ran out of money and Carmel sued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carmel sued Monterra for breach of oral contract. In addition, Carmel sued Monterra and several of its investors who had real property interests in unsold lots in the subdivision to foreclose on two mechanics liens, known as the \u201cWater Lien\u201d for the layout and design of potable water and sewer systems and construction of a reverse osmosis water plant, and the \u201cSite Improvement Lien\u201d for the design, construction and repair of roads, driveways, retaining walls, and utilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before trial, Carmel and Monterra stipulated that: (1) Monterra owed Carmel over $9 million; (2) the amount due would be satisfied by foreclosure of: (a) the Water Lien against the 85 unsold lots in the subdivision; and (b) the Site Improvement Lien against eight unsold lots in phases seven and nine that benefitted from the work underlying the Site Improvement Lien: and (3) that any amount not satisfied by foreclosure would become a judgment against Monterra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case proceeded to a lengthy bench trial tried in two phases, liability and damages, respectively. Following the liability phase of trial, the trial court ruled that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Monterra and the defendant investors were liable under the Water Lien and the Site Improvement Lien;<\/li>
  2. The two liens would accrue contractual interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as had been agreed verbally between Plaintiff and Monterra in late 2000; and<\/li>
  3. Carmel and Monterra could agree that the two liens would only apply to the 85 unsold lots in the subdivision \u201cto avoid financial injury to third-party purchasers who had already purchased lots which were to be free of mechanic[\u2018s] liens\u201d<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Following the damages phase of trial, the trial court apportioned the two liens to specific lots. The trial court allocated the Water Lien to the 58 unsold units in the subdivision and allocated the Site Improvement Lien to eight unsold lots in phases seven and nine. In addition, the trial court applied prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, under Civil Code Section 3287, commencing one year after Carmel filed its complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The investor defendants appealed arguing that the trial court had erred in:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Allowing Carmel to maximize the amount of money owed under the two liens by selectively applying payments it had received from Monterra to amounts owed for work that were not liened;<\/li>
    2. Allowing Carmel and Monterra to stipulate to application of the two liens to only unsold lots in the subdivision as opposed to each lot in the subdivision whether unsold or sold;<\/li>
    3. Applying contractual interests to amounts found to be owed under the two liens; and<\/li>
    4. Applying prejudgment interest.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The Appeal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Carmel\u2019s Selective Application of Payments from Monterra to Amounts Owed<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      At issue was application of Civil Code Section 1479. Under Section 1479, where a debtor owes amounts under several obligations (e.g., owes money under several outstanding invoices), and performs an act or makes payment that could be applied to any of those obligations, such performance can be applied in one of three ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      1. If, at the time of performance, the debtor indicates that its performance is to be applied to a particular obligation, then the performance must be applied to the particular obligation specified.<\/li>
      2. If no such indication is made by a debtor, then within a reasonable time after performance by the debtor, the creditor may apply such performance to any obligation he or she desires.<\/li>
      3. If no indication is made by a debtor, and a creditor does not apply a debtor\u2019s performance to a particular obligation within a reasonable time after performance by the debtor, the performance is to be applied in the following order: (a) to interest due at the time of performance; (b) to principal due at the time of performance; (c) to the obligation earliest in date of maturity; (d) to an obligation not secured by a lien or collateral; and, finally (e) to an obligation secured by a lien or collateral.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        The investor defendants, in an effort to lower the amount secured by the Water Lien and Site Improvement Lien, argued that the third methodology should apply because Carmel\u2019s office manager kept a spreadsheet and applied payments to the oldest outstanding amounts and, further, because Carmel did not allocate payments until shortly after recording its two liens and that this occurred months and years after payment had been made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In response, Carmel argued that the spreadsheet prepare by its office manager was kept merely used to show Monterra the \u201corder of magnitude\u201d between work performed and amounts owed, and that Carmel later prepared a color-coded spreadsheet, admittedly after the two liens were recorded, showing how Carmel applied the payments made by Monterra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The Court of Appeal, relying on \u201clongstanding authority interpreting section 1479 to the effect that \u2018where the debtor has made no designation, the creditor, if entitled to make application, must make the application before suit is brought,’\u201d found that because Carmel presented evidence that it had applied the payments made by Monterra in a certain way, and had done so before filing suit, that second methodology of Civil Code Section 1479 applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Carmel and Monterra\u2019s Agreement to Limit the Two Liens to Specified Lots<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The California Supreme Court, explained the Court of Appeals, has observed that with respect to the extent of real property to which a mechanics lien attaches, the \u201cquestion is not so much as to the amount of land required for the area to be occupied by the [improvements], but rather as to the amount of land to be improved or benefitted by the creation and use of the [improvements].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In other words, the extent of real property to which a mechanics lien attaches turns less on the physical dimensions of the real property upon which work was performed, but rather, on the extent of real property that benefitted from the work performed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The Court of Appeal, noting that a substantial evidence standard of review applies when reviewing a trial court\u2019s determination of the extent of real property to which a mechanics lien attaches, found that the Water Lien benefitted the entire subdivision rather than just the 85 unsold lots agreed to by Carmel and Monterra because the work performed (the construction of a water treatment plant) was intended to provide water to all lots in the subdivision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        However, with respect to the Site Improvement Lien, the Court of Appeal held that because the roads and related infrastructure were only connected to the lots in phases seven and nine \u2014 and, while noting, that there was an interconnection with the rest of the infrastructure serving the subdivision, such interconnection was \u201cfar more attenuated than the connection between the water improvements and all of the lots in Monterra\u201d \u2013 that the Site Improvement Lien only benefited the costs in phases seven and nine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Assessment of Contractual Interest to Amounts Owing Under the Two Liens<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The trial court awarded contractual interest on the amount owing under the two liens based on the oral agreement between Carmel and Monterra in late 2010 that unpaid amounts would bear interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        On appeal, the investor defendants argued that no contractual interest should be awarded. The Court of Appeal agreed. The amount of a mechanics lien, explained the Court, is the lesser<\/strong> of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1. The reasonable value of the work performed; and<\/li>
        2. The contractual price agreed for the work.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          And here, because the trial court found that the contract price agreed to by Carmel and Monterra was commercially reasonable, the trial court in essence, had found that the reasonable value of the work performed was the same as the contractual price agreed for the work. However, held the Court of Appeal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          [R]ather than awarding plaintiff the \u201creasonable value\u201d of the liened work \u2014 which the court found was equal to the contract price without interest \u2013 as required by former section 3123, the trial court added contractual interest to the reasonable value. The contractual interest added no value to the liened work; it was instead a method of compensating plaintiff for Monterra LLC\u2019s failure to timely pay invoices. Because the court found that the reasonable value of the liened work equalled the contract price without interest for that work, and the contractual interest provision added no additional value to the lien work, the trial court erred by including contractual interest in the amount of the liens.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

          Assessment of Prejudgment Interest to Amounts Owing Under the Two Liens<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Finally, the trial court awarded prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum under Civil Code Section 3287 commencing one year after Carmel filed its complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          On appeal, the investor defendants argued that no prejudgment interest should be awarded under Civil Code Section 3287 because a mechanics lien foreclosure action is not a \u201ccause of action in contract,\u201d and that even if prejudgment interest were available under Civil Code Section 3287, the interest rate should be seven percent (7%) per annum as opposed to ten percent (10%) per annum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The Court of Appeal agreed in part and disagreed in part. As to the investor defendants\u2019 argument that no prejudgment interest should be awarded under Civil CodeSection 3287 because a mechanics lien foreclosure action is not a \u201ccause of action in contract,\u201d the Court of Appeal of explained that while \u201c[f]oreclosing on a mechanic\u2019s lien does not technically enforce a contractual provision, . . . the statutory scheme is closely related to contract and quasi contract actions.\u201d Thus, held the Court, \u201c[w]e conclude a mechanics lien foreclosure action is sufficiently like a contract action to be considered a \u2019cause of action in contract\u2019 for purposes of section 3287(b).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the investor defendants that the trial court had applied an incorrect prejudgment interest interest. According to the Court, the ten percent (10%) interest rate under Civil Code Section 3289 (which applies to breach of contract claims) would apply to claims between a mechanics\u2019 lien claimant and a party with whom it is in direct contract explained the court. However, the lower seven percent (7%) interest rate under Constitution (which does not require that there was a contract) would apply to claims between a mechanics\u2019 lien claimant and a party with whom it is not in direct contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Noting the apparent inconsistency between its holding that prejudgment interest could be awarded because a mechanics\u2019 lien foreclosure action is sufficiently close to being a \u201ccause of action in contract\u201d under Civil Code Section 3287, on one hand, but that prejudgment of interest of seven percent (7%) should be awarded rather than ten percent (10%) because the claim was essentially not a breach of contract claim, on the other hand, the Court of Appeal noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          We acknowledge what may appear to be an inconsistency in determining that a mechanic\u2019s lien foreclosure action is an action in contract under section 3287(b), but that the 10 percent interest rate for breach of contract judgments under section 3289, subdivision (b) does not apply. But looking at the text of the statutes at issue, section 3287(b) applies broadly to any cause action in contract, whereas section 3289 applies only to breach of contract actions. Like section 1717, section 3289 provides tools to aid contract interpretations and thus assumes a contract been the parties. As there was no contract between plaintiff and defendants, there could be no breach, and section 3289 therefore does not apply.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

          Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Carmel<\/em> involved some unusual facts: An oral agreement spanning more than a decade, some inconsistent accounting, and side-agreements regarding the application of two mechanics liens. Yet, Carmel<\/em>, offers some well established reminders \u2013 that the extent of real property to which a mechanics lien attaches is based on the benefit provided by the work performed and not just to the immediate area where such work is actually performed \u2013 to some new ones applicable to the 6th District Court of Appeals \u2013 that an award of contractual interest is not available in mechanics\u2019 lien foreclosure actions and that, while prejudgment interest is awardable, whether the applicable interest rate is ten percent (10%) or seven percent (7%) depends on who the defendant is.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog People do the darnedest things. The next case,\u00a0Carmel Development Company v. Anderson, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but… Continue reading California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9,10772],"tags":[9895,88,224,441],"class_list":["post-897791","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-contracts","category-mechanics-lien-law","tag-advise-consult","tag-california","tag-construction-contract","tag-mechanics-liens","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCalifornia Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-08-04T20:21:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-04T20:33:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-04T20:21:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-04T20:33:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\"},\"wordCount\":2152,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"california\",\"Construction Contract\",\"Mechanics Liens\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Contracts\",\"Mechanics Lien Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\",\"name\":\"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-04T20:21:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-04T20:33:04+00:00\",\"description\":\"10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2020-08-04T20:21:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-08-04T20:33:04+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground","datePublished":"2020-08-04T20:21:25+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-04T20:33:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/"},"wordCount":2152,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","california","Construction Contract","Mechanics Liens"],"articleSection":["Construction Contracts","Mechanics Lien Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/","name":"California Mechanics\u2019 Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-08-04T20:21:25+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-04T20:33:04+00:00","description":"10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-mechanics-lien-trends\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3Lyv","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897791","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=897791"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897791\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":897794,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897791\/revisions\/897794"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=897791"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=897791"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=897791"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}