Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Mechanics Liens For Excavation Work

By Wally Zimolong on June 21, 2011
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

An excavator’s, landscaper’s, or demolition contractor’s right to a mechanics lien in Pennsylvania is a tricky question because, unlike typical trade contractors,  there is not a per se right to a mechanics lien for excavating, demolition, or landscaping. The Mechanics Lien Law states  erection, construction, alteration, or repair work includes demolition, excavation, and landscaping only “when such work is incidental to the erection, construction, alteration, or repair” of a building.  For years, this was accepted to mean that a building must actually be completed before a mechanics lien for demolition, excavation, or landscaping would attach.

However, as first blogged about by Robert Ruggieri across the street at Cohen Seglias, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued an opinion stating that the completion of a building is not a prerequisite to an excavating contractor’s right to a mechanics lien.

In B.N. Excavating, Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A, L.P., 2011 WL 2190768 (Pa.Super.2011), the Superior Court overturned the trial court’s dismissal of a mechanics lien claim of an excavating contractor on a project that was never completed.  The trial court reasoned that in order for claimant’s work to be “incident” to construction a building must be completed.  The Superior Court squarely rejected this reasoning stating:

“we do not interpret the [Mechanics Lien Law] . . . as creating a bright-line rule that a mechanic’s lien can never attach to land absent an erected structure.”

The Superior Court declined to equate the Mechanics Lien Law’s phrase “incidental to the erection [or] construction” with the requirement that the structure actually exist.  The Court found more important whether the excavation work was performed “in preparation for planned construction.”

This decision has obvious implications on the myriad of projects that are left half finished because of lending issues.  It also raises the question as to whether landscapers and paving contractors should file mechanics liens and argue for a more liberal interpretation of the definition of “erection, construction, alteration, or repair.”

Photo of Wally Zimolong Wally Zimolong

Wally represents contractors (and subcontractors) and developers. His clients build and develop residential, commercial, and industrial properties nationwide. Wally enjoys working with the owners of the businesses he represents because they tend to be entrepreneurs and all around interesting people.

Read more about Wally ZimolongEmailWally's Linkedin ProfileWally's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    Supplemental Conditions
  • Organization:
    Zimolong LLC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo