A mechanics’ lien is a powerful remedy that provides a contractor with a priority lien on a property and a fast means of being made whole if payment is not rendered at the completion of a job. In order to successfully obtain a mechanics’ lien, a filing party must “Perfect the Lien,” meaning that it must be filed appropriately and contain the necessary information. Belfor Property Restoration v. Ravenwood Mannor, LLC, 305 A.3d 1085 (Pa.Super. 2023), and R.A. Greig Equipment Company v. Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC, 305 A.3d 56 (Pa.Super. 2023), demonstrate the importance of strict adherence to the rules and meaning of the language in the mechanics’ lien statute to ensure a cost-effective and successful outcome when filing a lien on behalf of a client. In Belfor and R.A. Greig the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was asked to review two separate but related trial court rulings dismissing mechanics’ liens.

In Belfor Property Restoration, the Superior Court was asked to review the trial court’s decision that plaintiff failed to properly serve the mechanics’ lien on defendant. Plaintiff filed a mechanics’ lien against defendant in the amount of $1,028,499.62 for “the price and value of furnished materials and delivered in connection with the improvement, erection, and/or construction of the property and buildings. . . located at 3015 Barrington Lane.” Belfor, at 1086. Ravenwood was a newly formed corporation with only one member. It employed security staff to monitor the property at 3015 Barrington Lane. Plaintiff served the mechanics’ lien on a security officer working at the property.

On the same day that plaintiff filed its complaint to enforce the mechanics’ lien, Ravenwood filed a motion to strike the mechanics’ lien claim based on improper service. Ravenwood subsequently filed preliminary objections reasserting its motion to strike for lack of valid service. The trial court heard argument on the matter and ultimately granted Ravenwood’s motion to strike the mechanics’ lien and deemed Ravenwood’s preliminary objections moot.

On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed the law for service on corporate entities and noted that service can be made upon: (1) an executive officer, partner, or trustee of the corporation; (2) the managing clerk or other person for the time being in charge of any regular place of business or activity of the corporation or similar entity; or, (3) an agent authorized by the corporation in writing to receive service of process for it. Pa.R.C.P. 424. The court determined that the security guard placed at Ravenwood’s place of business was the person in charge at the time service was made as he was placed at the location, and employed by Ravenwood. Because the Superior Court determined that service was proper, it overruled the trial court’s decision granting Ravenwood’s motion to strike the mechanics’ lien and remanded the matter to the trial court for further review.

In R.A. Greig, plaintiff filed a mechanics’ lien against Mark Erie Hospitality to secure a lien against two properties of Mark Erie Hospital for damage caused to construction equipment and unpaid rental cost related to the equipment, claiming that the equipment and rental costs were “materials” pursuant to the mechanics’ lien law. The trial court struck the mechanics’ lien and determined that the rental equipment and related payments were not “materials” within the definition of the Mechanics’ Lien Law and plaintiff appealed.

The Superior Court traced the history of the meaning of the word “materials” back to the 1920s and determined that for the purpose of a mechanics’ lien, the word “materials” is defined as “’fixtures, machinery and equipment’ [that] must not only be ‘reasonably necessary’ they must also be ‘incorporated into the improvement.’” R.A. Greig at 61. The Superior Court determined that the undisputed facts of the matter were not incorporated into the improvement and thus not subject to a mechanics’ lien.

These cases are important to show the precision courts will use when ruling on whether a mechanics’ lien has been filed properly and whether the subject matter of the lien even falls within the scope of the law as written.