Solit

Solit v. TOKAI BANK

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 11·68 Cal. App. 4th 1435·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 243·99 Daily Journal DAR 257·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 228
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 1999B120486California5,834 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Mark R. Solit (Solit) is a defendant and cross-complainant in this matter. In his cross-complaint, he alleges, among others, a cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against certain real property located in Santa Monica, California, owned by Sam and Claire Stein (the Steins). At the time Solit filed his lien, the property was encumbered by a construction loan from Tokai Bank, Limited, New York Branch (Tokai).

Tokai brought a motion for summary adjudication as to this cause of action on the ground that Solit had not commenced his foreclosure action within the statutorily mandated 90-day period following the recording of the mechanic’s lien. The lien Solit sought to foreclose had been recorded on October 22, 1990. However, it was based on the same underlying claim for payment (although in a lesser amount) as to which he had previously filed a lien on March 7, 1990. Because he failed to file a timely action (i.e., within 90 days) to enforce that lien, and after Tokai had demanded that he do so and threatened to seek a court decree releasing the property from the lien, he filed and recorded a lien release on August 28, 1990. In ruling on Tokai’s motion, the trial…

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.