Yesterday I published an article title “How Material Suppliers Prove Its Materials Were Incorporated Into the Property When Filing A Mechanics Lien.” Those lawyers out there, and especially construction lawyers, probably immediately know the answer here, and that’s the presumption created by most state laws. The presumption is this: If the building material supplier can prove delivery of the materials to the improvement, the courts will presume those materials were incorporated.
Now, I say “most states” because it’s impossible to talk about mechanic lien laws and say something that uniformly applies across the country.
I’m aware of at least one exception to the presumption rule. In California, the lien claimant has the burden of establishing the validity of the lien, including that the labor, materials or services were actually used in construction. Basic Modular Facilities v. Ehsanipour, 70 Cal. App. 1480, 1485 (1999).
Other than this California example, however, I don’t know of any exceptions to this presumption. Any construction attorneys out there know of a state law that treats this issue differently than I’ve explained? Please comment!
As always, I appreciate your help.