Facebook LinkedIn Twitter YouTube Blog Google+ Sign-Up
Menu
Menu

Attorneys

Practices

Owner/Landlords Beware: Your Ownership Interest Can be Liened by Your Tenant's Contractors

Client Alert
April 28, 2011

On April 13, 2011 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rendered a decision that should concern every owner/landlord. In the case of Trace Construction, Inc. v. Dana Barros Sports Complex, LLC, the SJC ruled that two contractors who performed renovations to the leased space at the former pro basketball star's camp could assert valid mechanic's liens against the owner/landlord's real property.

The Massachusetts mechanic's lien statute expressly provides that a mechanic's lien may attach to an interest in real property that is less than an ownership interest (i.e., a leasehold interest). Accordingly, it was not surprising when the contractors inTrace asserted mechanic's liens against Barros' leasehold interest. The contractors, however, went one step further, and asserted mechanic's liens against the owner/landlord's real property interest as well.

Massachusetts General Law chapter 254, §2 provides that a person who, under a written contract to perform construction improvements with the owner of any interest in real property or with any person acting for, on behalf of, or with the consent of such owner, shall have a lien on such real property owned by the party with whom or on behalf of whom the contract was entered into.

The SJC in Trace focused on the "consent" issue. The court concluded that, for the purpose of the mechanic's lien statute, owner/landlord "consent" means more than just the owner/landlord's awareness of the tenant's intention to perform work, awareness of actual work being performed, or a failure to object to the work being performed.

In Trace, the SJC found owner/landlord consent in that the owner/landlord knew that Barros was converting the leased space in question from storage space to a recreational facility. The lease with Barros provided that any leasehold improvements he made were subject to the owner/landlord's consent (which could not be unreasonably withheld). In addition, the lease provided that all of the tenant fixture improvements to the real property would inure to the owner/landlord's benefit. Based upon the totality of these factors, the SJC held that the tenant's contractors' liens against the owner/landlord's real property were valid pursuant to M.G.L. c.254, §2.

As a result of the Trace decision, owner/landlords must be aware of the potential impact that a tenant fit-out project could have on their real property. To the extent that leases anticipate owner/landlord's consent to improvements, and provide that said improvements ultimately become their property, owner/landlords should consider lease provisions that mandate that tenants who intend to build out their leasehold must first provide and record a blanket lien bond in the full value of any improvement contract. This will ensure that the owner/landlord is not held liable by way of a mechanic's lien to a tenant's contractors in the event the tenant fails to pay for the improvements.

If you have any questions about this decision, mechanic's liens, or any aspect of construction law, please contact Hugh J. Gorman, III, the author of this alert. Hugh is chair of Prince Lobel's Construction Law Practice Group. He can be reached at 617 456 8093 or hgorman@princelobel.com.


 
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 2200 | Boston, MA 02114 | 617 456 8000