Lambert Steel Co. v. Heller Financial, Inc.

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 1034·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 659·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453·93 Daily Journal DAR 7927·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4724
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 1993Docket Nos. B065073, B065187California7,318 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nott, J.

Appellants Lambert Steel Co., Inc., J. Mischel, Inc., Scott E. Campbell, and Steiny & Co., Inc., sought to enforce their mechanics’ liens as priority liens ahead of a construction deed of trust. Respondent Heller Financial, Inc., is the successor to the holder of the note secured by the deed of trust. The judgment awarded damages to three of the four appellants against the owners of the property, Albertino Parravano and Pacific Sunset, Ltd., a limited partnership. 1 However, the trial court found the deed of trust to have priority over the mechanics’ liens, which it discharged.

The sole issue raised on appeal by Lambert, Mischel, and Campbell is the question of priority. The trial court adopted respondent’s interpretation of the controlling statutes, Civil Code 2 sections 3134 and 3135. We also agree with respondent’s reading of the statutes and affirm the judgment.

As to Steiny, judgment was entered in favor of respondent. 3 Steiny challenges the trial court’s ruling that discharged its mechanic’s lien on the ground that it failed to give a required 20-day preliminary notice.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts are not in dispute. In February 1981, Mr. Parravano…

Dissenting Opinion

Gates, J.

With regret, I must respectfully dissent.

Naturally, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues that we should strive always to determine the intent of the Legislature and, in so doing, should turn first to the words of the statute, giving significance to every word and avoiding constructions which make some words surplusage. Unfortunately, when I do so in this instance, strive as I may, I am unable to ignore, and thereby eliminate, the word “residential” from Civil Code section 3135, a term there used not once, but twice.

No purpose, nor rule of grammar, has been suggested to explain why the drafters of this section would have expressly stated that the exception it creates applies to “residential” structures if they intended it to apply equally to “nonresidential,” i.e., “commercial,” structures. If such had been their intent, would they have written, “If any site improvement is provided for in a separate contract from any contract with respect to the erection of residential units or other structures, then the site improvement shall be considered a separate work of improvement and the commencement thereof shall not constitute a commencement of the work of improvement consisting…

Opinion

Appellants Lambert Steel Co., Inc., J. Mischel, Inc., Scott E. Campbell, and Steiny & Co., Inc., sought to enforce their mechanics' liens as priority liens ahead of a construction deed of trust. Respondent Heller Financial, Inc., is the successor to the holder of the note secured by the deed of trust. The judgment awarded damages to three of the four appellants against the owners of the property, Albertino Parravano and Pacific Sunset, Ltd., a limited partnership. [1] However, the trial court found the deed of trust to have priority over the mechanics' liens, which it discharged.

The sole issue raised on appeal by Lambert, Mischel, and Campbell is the question of priority. The trial court adopted respondent's interpretation of the controlling statutes, Civil Code [2] sections 3134 and 3135. We also agree with respondent's reading of the statutes and affirm the judgment.

As to Steiny, judgment was entered in favor of respondent. [3] Steiny challenges the trial court's ruling that discharged its mechanic's lien on the ground that it failed to give a required 20-day preliminary notice.

The facts are not in dispute. In February 1981, Mr. Parravano purchased a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.