constructive notice argument post sb 863 (California) (Calif

[jgrahamlegal]

Case in chief settled in 8/2010. Last date of service for lien holder was 1/2010. Company was paid for 2 dos in 11/08 and 1/09. Defense counsel never received bill and company didn't file lien until 1/2014, 4 years after last dos and long after file closed. My understanding is the constructive notice argument was essentially nullified with the passage of SB 863. If not, what's the point of a statute of limitations?

[LienExaminer]

LC 4903.5(a) now reads "A lien shall not be filed after 3 years form the date of services were provided; nor more that 18 months after the date of services were provided, if the services were provided on or after July 1, 2013".

The law is conise and clear. No more construtive knowldge.

The Defense needs to be firm on this issue. Examiners need to look at the date of service and check to see if a lien has been filed. If it is past the statute - offer nothing. Let's hope we don't see the Judges softening on this. The EAMS system should have parameters built in so that a Lien Claimant cannot file a lien if it is past the statute, but I doubt this is the case.