Opinion
No. CV 02-0098541S
June 25, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Rollar Construction Demolition, Inc. ("Rollar"), seeks to foreclose a mechanic's lien against real property owned by Granite Rock Associates, LLC, located at 124 High Street, Haddam, Connecticut (the "Property"). The defendants Walter Gretchyn and Mary Gretchyn hold a first mortgage on the Property. Rollar claims that that first mortgage is invalid.
Alvin Cruz and Joseph Amadore are also defendants in this case by virtue of a mortgage deed to Victory State Bank from Granite Rock Associates, LLC dated November 11, 2000. Cruz and Amadore participated in the trial of this action, they take the position that the Rollar mechanic's lien is invalid and maintain that the issue of validity or priority of their mortgage should be reserved until the supplemental judgment stage pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 49-27 and Voluntown v. Rytman, 27 Conn. App. 549 (1992). No litigant presented any evidence with respect to the Cruz-Amadore mortgage at the trial and, therefore, the validity and priority of that mortgage is not addressed here.
After a trial the court finds the following facts. Granite Rock is a limited liability company which came into existence on January 27, 1998 when it filed Articles of Organization with the Connecticut Secretary of State. Those Articles of Organization identified Allison K. Gratta as Manager and Francis R. Sablone, Jr., as the statutory agent. No writing indicating the identities of the owners of Granite Rock existed prior to April 10, 2002, the date of a document entitled "Operating Agreement of Granite Rock Associates, LLC." That document lists the owners of Granite Rock and their percentage interests as follows: Mario L. Tiberi, 60%; Cathleen Maynard, 25%; Allison Gratta, 7.5%; and Robin Lewis French, 7.5%.
This case was tried together with the case of Walter Gretchyn et al. v. Granite Rock Associates, LLC, CV-01-0096950.
Allison Gratta is the daughter of Fran Gratta and Robin Lewis French is the daughter of Walter Lewis. Fran Gratta and Walter Lewis both chose to have their interest in Granite Rock placed into the names of their children to insulate that interest from their creditors. Gratta and Lewis completely controlled the conduct of their daughters with respect to Granite Rock.
Granite Rock was created by Fran Gratta, John Kelly, Walter Lewis and Keith Maynard for the purpose of operating a company which bottled spring water from the Property, which had been the location of a soda bottling company for many years. Undina Beverages, Inc., was the name of the company which had bottled soda on the Property until 1997, when it encountered financial difficulties. Undina Beverages, Inc., was a corporation owned by Keith Maynard and his wife, Cathleen Maynard. Undina Beverages, Inc. acquired the Property from Frederick and H. Jeanne Norton in 1990. Undina Beverages, Inc. paid some cash for the property and took back purchase money mortgage from the Nortons. That mortgage went into default in January 1993. The Nortons commenced a foreclosure action against the Property in May 1997.
At the time the Nortons foreclosed against Undina Beverages, Inc., the Property was also encumbered by a mortgage to Webster Bank in the original principal amount of $49,257, tax liens by the State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services totaling approximately $10,000 and a federal tax lien in the amount of $27,500. Mr. Maynard did not contest the foreclosure even though he believed that the Property had a value far in excess of the $145,000 appraisal presented to the court by the Nortons. The plaintiffs withdrew the action against the United States of America, thereby enabling the court to grant a judgment of strict foreclosure as opposed to a foreclosure by sale. The subsequent encumbrancers failed to redeem and, therefore, the Nortons acquired the property free and clear of those encumbrances on January 15, 1998. The Nortons were older, had retired, and just wanted to obtain the balance of the money owed to them by Undina. After the "friendly foreclosure" the Nortons were able to sell the Property to the Maynards, or their nominee, Granite Rock, free and clear of the encumbrances which the Maynards' company, Undina Beverages, Inc., had placed on the Property.
Granite Rock obtained title to the Property on August 17, 1999 when payment in the amount of $97,315.20 was made to the Nortons. It appears that the foregoing amount came from either Fran Gratta or his friend, John Kelly. The purchase and sale ageement between the Nortons and Granite Rock required Granite Rock to purchase the property in its "as is" condition. In addition, that agreement did not require Granite Rock to make any improvements, did not provide that Granite Rock could have access to the Property prior to the transfer of title, and did not condition Granite Rock's or the Nortons' obligations under the agreement on the completion of any work on the Property.
Attorney Marc Pagani represented Granite Rock when it purchased the Property from the Nortons. He was retained by Fran Gratta. Allison Gratta and Fran Gratta were present at the closing. By Transfer/Assignment dated January 6, 2000 Allison Gratta transferred all of her interest in Granite Rock to Mario Tiberi of East Hanover, New Jersey.
Thereafter, Fran Gratta contacted Attorney Pagani concerning a possible loan to Granite Rock. By Commercial Term Promissory Note (the "Note") dated February 7, 2000, Granite Rock Associates, LLC ("Granite Rock"), agreed to pay to the order of the plaintiff, Walter Gretchyn, a retired policeman, and his mother, Mary Gretchyn, the amount of $300,000. The Note was secured by a mortgage deed (the "Mortgage") on the Property.
Attorney Pagani dealt initially with Fran Gratta and later with Mario Tiberi concerning that Note and Mortgage. John Kelly was brought into Granite Rock by Fran Gratta. There is some evidence that he owned 60% of Granite Rock in February of 2000 when Granite Rock signed the Note to the Gretchyns. However, there was no writing presented in evidence which reflected that interest. In any event, John Kelly was aware of Allison Gratta's transfer of her interest in Granite Rock to Mario Tiberi and consented to Tiberi becoming a member. Fran Gratta and John Kelly were also aware that Mario Tiberi was looking for a source from which to borrow $300,000 in the name of Granite Rock.
At the time of the Gretchyn closing Granite Rock did not have an operating agreement or any other document setting forth the names of the members of Granite Rock or the respective membership interests of those members. Attorney Pagani represented to the Gretchyns and their attorney that Mario Tiberi was duly authorized by Granite Rock to enter into the mortgage with the Gretchyns. Mr. Tiberi signed an afffdavit which indicated that there were no outstanding liens on the property. The Gretchyns relied on the loan documents prepared by Attorney Pagani in loaning $300,000 to Granite Rock. Mario Tiberi took the $300,000 that had been provided by the Gretchyns and deposited that sum into an account under the name of Granite Rock Associates, LLC. Tiberi then used most of the $300,000 for his business enterprises unrelated to Granite Rock.
Donald Lifari was the attorney who represented the Gretchyns. He had also acted as the attorney for Mario Tiberi and Tiberi's various business enterprises. Walter and Mary Gretchyn did not know Mario Tiberi, Fran Gratta, the Maynards or Walter Lewis at the time they lent the money to Granite Rock. They entered into the loan with Granite Rock because Mary Gretchyn's attorney, Donald Lifari, told her that it was a good investment.
Granite Rock and Rollar now maintain that Granite Rock never authorized Tiberi to act for Granite Rock with respect to the Gretchyn Note and Mortgage. However, some two years after the Gretchyn loan, Tiberi, Allison Gratta, Robin Lewis French (by Walter Lewis) and Cathleen Maynard signed the Granite Rock Operating Agreement, which stated that Mario Tiberi was a 60% owner of Granite Rock. On the date of that Agreement, April 6, 2002, Granite Rock was already aware of the Note and Mortgage because its attorney had entered an appearance in the Gretchyn's mortgage foreclosure action in December 2001. In addition, at no time between February 7, 2000, when Tiberi obtained the $300,000 from the Gretchyn's on behalf of Granite Rock, and January 2004, when the trial in this action commenced, did any of the supposed members of Granite Rock ever sue Tiberi for theft or advise the State's Attorney of what Granite Rock now claims was a theft by Mario Tiberi.
The Gretchyn Mortgage
Granite Rock and Rollar argue that the mortgage to the Gretchyns is invalid because Mario Tiberi had no authority to sign the Note or Mortgage. Since the court finds that the Rollar mechanic's lien is invalid, the validity of the Gretchyn Note and Mortgage are immaterial in the context of this action. However, the validity of that Note and Mortgage are discussed below in the event that that issue is deemed to be material at any future stage in these proceedings.
For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that Mario Tiberi had actual and apparent authority to sign the Note and Mortgage.
In February 2000, the only writing that existed concerning the members of Granite Rock was the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Connecticut Secretary of State on January 27, 1998. The only people identified in that document were Allison Gratta, manager, and Francis R. Sablone, Jr., statutory agent. John Kelly, an associate of Fran Gratta, or Fran Gratta had provided the money with which Granite Rock purchased the Property from the Nortons. Therefore, although Cathleen Maynard and Robin Lewis French supposedly had an interest in Granite Rock, they had taken no actions with respect to that entity since 1998. By Assignment dated January 6, 2000, Allison Gratta transferred all of her interest in Granite Rock to Mario Tiberi. John Kelly, who owned 60% of Granite Rock at that time, knew about that transfer and consented to Tiberi becoming a member of Granite Rock. Therefore, as of January 6, 2000 Mario Tiberi was a member of Granite Rock.
As a member of Granite Rock, Mario Tiberi had the authority to enter into the loan transaction with the Gretchyns. Connecticut General Statutes § 34-130(a) provides that "every member is an agent of the limited liability company for the purpose of its business or affairs, and the act of any member, including, but not limited to, the execution in the name of the limited liability company of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business or affairs of the limited liability company of which he is a member binds the limited liability company . . ."
As of December 2001 when Attorney Robert Sweeney entered an appearance on behalf of Granite Rock in this action, Granite Rock was on notice that the Gretchyns were foreclosing a mortgage that had been signed by Mario Tiberi. Four months later on April 10, 2002, the members of Granite Rock signed an Operating Agreement indicating that Mario Tiberi was a 60% owner of Granite Rock. The Operating Agreement was signed by Walter Lewis on behalf of his daughter, Robin Lewis French, and was also signed by Allison Gratta at the direction of her father, Fran Gratta. This Operating Agreement clearly ratified Tiberi's authority to enter into the Gretchyn mortgage and belies Granite Rock's current claim that Mario Tiberi lacked such authority.
This ratification of Tiberi's authority to enter into the mortgage with the Gretchyns is further supported by Granite Rock's failure to sue Mario Tiberi for theft or its failure to complain about Mario Tiberi's actions to the State's Attorney. Granite Rock now claims that Tiberi not only lacked authority to mortgage the Property to the Gretchyns, but his receipt of money from the Gretchyns and his appropriation of most of that money to his own use constituted theft. But Granite Rock's members did not sue Tiberi for theft or press criminal charges against him. Instead, they signed an Operating Agreement confirming that Tiberi had a 60% interest in Granite Rock.
Mario Tiberi also had apparent authority to enter into the Gretchyn Mortgage and Note. "This issue of apparent authority is one of fact to be determined on two criteria: first, on the conduct of the principal in holding out his agent as having sufficient authority to include the action in question; and, second, on the reasonable belief of a party acting in good faith." Hollywyle Ass'n, Inc. v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389, 395-96, 324 A.2d 247 (1973).
Attorney Pagani had represented Granite Rock when it acquired the Property. He prepared all loan documents for signature by Mario Tiberi as a duly authorized member of Granite Rock and sent those loan documents to the closing. John Kelly and Fran Gratta were both aware that Tiberi was looking for a source from which to borrow $300,000 in the name of Granite Rock. To that end, Fran Gratta provided Tiberi with an appraisal on the Property which showed a fair market value of $1,620,000.
The Gretchyns relied on the fact that Mario Tiberi was a member of Granite Rock with authority to sign the Note and Mortgage. In light of the absence of any operating agreement or any other document which contained the names of the Granite Rock members, this reliance was reasonable.
In Lettieri v. American Savings Bank, 182 Conn. 1, 437 A.2d 822 (1980), the president of a dissolved corporation signed a mortgage on property owned by the corporation. The lender knew that the corporation no longer existed and knew that the president was using the loan proceeds for his own business purposes. The lender allowed the president "to sign the mortgage note for the corporation in his capacity as corporate president on the basis of documentation that was, at the very least, highly questionable. The bank required [the president] to produce a corporate resolution, but accepted a resolution signed only by [the president] himself, carrying a seal that was visibly hand drawn. The bank took the word of the corporation counsel that this resolution adequately conveyed corporate authority." Id. at 6. The remaining shareholders had no knowledge that the president was entering into the loan transaction. The Supreme Court held that the mortgage was valid.
In Lettieri the Supreme Court found that the lender had relied in good faith on the president's apparent authority even though the lender knew that the corporate borrower no longer existed. In reaching that determination the Court noted that the lender had asked the borrower's attorney about the president's authority to sign the mortgage. Although the Court noted that an opinion letter from the corporation's attorney might have been the better practice, it stated that "we are hardly in a position to characterize as a lack of good faith an oral inquiry directed to the same person." Id. at 11.
In this case the Gretchyn's attorney sought and received a written representation from Attorney Pagani that Mario Tiberi had authority to enter into the Note and Mortgage with the Gretchyns.
The Supreme Court in Lettieri also noted that "inquiry of the remaining corporation shareholders might well have been fruitless because of the confusion evidenced at trial about the corporation's books and the whereabouts of its shareholders." Such an inquiry of the members of Granite Rock would also have been fruitless because at the time of the Gretchyn loan transaction there was no operating agreement or other document indicating the names of the members of Granite Rock or the percentage interests held by any member. Moreover, Granite Rock's own attorney, Attorney Pagani, believed that Mario Tiberi was the sole member of Granite Rock at the time of the Gretchyn loan closing.
Granite Rock's argument that it never hired Attorney Pagani to represent Granite Rock in connection with the Gretchyn mortgage is not credible. It is undisputed that Granite Rock hired Attorney Pagani to represent it in the acquisition of the Property. Moreover, Fran Gratta was in Attorney Pagani's office on January 6, 2000 when Mario Tiberi signed the Owner's Affidavit. On that same day Allison Gratta signed the Transfer/Assignment of Interest in Limited Liability Company to Mario Tiberi in Attorney Pagani's office. Since Allison Gratta had no knowledge of any affairs of Granite Rock it is clear that she would only sign such a document at the direction of her father, and that her father, Fran Gratta was in Attorney Pagani's office on that day and had full knowledge that Attorney Pagani represented Granite Rock in its efforts, though Tiberi, to borrow money using Granite Rock's Property as collateral.
For the reasons set forth above, the Note and Mortgage to the Gretchyns are valid and enforceable.
Rollar Mechanic Lien
Rollar Construction Demolition, Inc. ("Rollar") is a construction company controlled by Walter Lewis. The president of Rollar is Robin Lewis French, the daughter of Walter Lewis. Lewis testified that he set up Rollar with his daughter as president to take advantage of benefits available to minority owned businesses. His daughter has no involvement with the operations of Rollar. Lewis has been a friend of Keith Maynard for many years and participated with Maynard and Gratta in the aforementioned "friendly foreclosure" by the Nortons against the Property.
Rollar's mechanic's lien which is at issue in this case is based on work performed pursuant to a contract dated January 5, 1998 between Rollar and Granite Rock. The lien was not filed on the Haddam Land Records until February 14, 2002.
On January 5, 1998 the Property was owned by Undina Beverages, Inc. After the aforementioned foreclosure, the Nortons became the owners of the Property on January 15, 1998. Granite Rock did not acquire title to the Property until August 17, 1999.
Rollar never expected that Undina Beverages or the Nortons would pay it for work performed pursuant to the January 5, 1998 contract, but, instead, believed that it would be paid from the profits of Granite Rock. Rollar performed work on the Property in 1998, 1999 and 2000. The court finds that there was no credible evidence that Rollar performed any work on the Property in 2001.
Rollar never received any payment from Granite Rock for any of the work it did on the Property. Except for the filing of the mechanic's lien, Rollar never sought any payment for work it performed on the Property. Robin Lewis French signed the Mechanic's Lien without any knowledge as to the truth of the information contained therein because her father, Walter Lewis, told her that he thought that a foreclosure was pending against the Property and that they had to "act fast" to perfect the mechanic's lien.
Granite Rock's only Operating Agreement was prepared by Rollar's attorney at the request of Mr. Lewis. Rollar's attorney, Attorney Patenaude, attended a meeting of the members of Granite Rock and Lewis was involved in the decision to hire Attorney Kraus to represent Granite Rock. Attorney Kraus had represented Lewis in the past.
Under Connecticut General Statutes § 49-33, a contractor can claim a mechanic's lien only if work is performed under an agreement "with or by consent of the owner of the land" A mechanic's lien based on an agreement with one who does not own the land is invalid. New England Savings Bank v. Meadow Lakes Realty Co., 243 Conn. 601, 610, 706 A.2d 465 (1998). In New England Savings Bank the Supreme Court invalidated a lien which purported to lien property for services rendered at the behest of an entity prior to its acquisition of title to that property. Id. at 615. In this case Rollar's lien indicates that Rollar began its work on January 21, 1998. However, Granite Rock did not acquire title to the property until August 17, 1999. On January 21, 1998, the Nortons owned the Property.
Rollar argues that both Undina Beverages, Inc. and the Nortons consented to Rollar performing the work on the Property. In this case, such consent does not validate the lien.
The mere granting of permission for work to be conducted on one's property has never been deemed sufficient to support a mechanic's lien against the property . . . We have also recognized long ago that a landowner does not subject his property to a mechanic's lien by simply allowing work to be done on it. (Citations omitted.) Hall v. Peacock Fixture Electric Co., 193 Conn. 290, 295, 475 A.2d 1100 (1984).
One who renders services or furnishes materials in the erection of a building on land which stands of record in the name of one, other than the person who procures the work to be done, is put upon notice, and if he fails to ascertain what rights the procuring party has in the land, he proceeds at his own risk so far as any claim for the payment of his bill out of the land is concerned. Bridgeport People's Savings Bank v. Palaia, 115 Conn. 357, 363, 161 A. 526 (1932).
"[A] landowner does not subject his property to a mechanic's lien by simply allowing work to be done on it." Id., 295. Nor does the owner's knowledge that the work is being done subject the property to a mechanic's lien. Newtown Associates v. Northeast Structures, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 633, 639-40, 546 A.2d 310 (1988). "The consent meant by the statute must be a consent that indicates an agreement that the owner of at least the land shall be, or may be, liable for the materials or labor." Avery v. Smith, 96 Conn. 223, 228, 113 A. 313 (1921). Although an express contract is not necessary for such a consent, the services must be furnished under circumstances indicating an implied contract by the owner to pay for them. Id.
Centerbrook, Architects Planners v. Laurel Nursing Serv., 224 Conn. 580, 591, 620 A.2d 127 (1993).
In this case Mr. Norton was adamant in his testimony that he never agreed to pay Rollar for any work it did on the Property. And while Undina Beverages, Inc. may have consented to Rollar's performance of services on the Property, it never agreed to pay for those services. In January of 1998, Undina had assets in the approximate amount of $1000, and was out of business. It had no ability to pay Rollar for amounts due under a $300,000 contract.
In Centerbrook the Supreme Court recognized that a mechanic's lien can be based on a contract with a prospective purchaser of the property only if there are provisions in the purchase contract that require the buyer to perform certain specified work as a condition of the seller's obligations under the contract. Id. at 589. There were no such provisions between the Nortons and Granite Rock. To the contrary, the contract obligated Granite Rock to purchase the Property "as is," and provided that the Property would be available for occupancy by Granite Rock "at the time of closing." It further provided as follows:
The Purchaser [Granite Rock] agrees that it has examined the premises and is fully satisfied with the physical condition thereof, that it takes the premises in its existing condition and that neither the Sellers nor any representative of the Sellers have made any representation or promise upon which the Purchaser has relied regarding the condition of the premises or of any of the property included in this contract of sale.
In order to validate a mechanic's lien on after-acquired property, there must be a provision in the purchase agreement that requires "as a condition of the seller's obligations under the contract, that the buyer perform the work at issue." Centerbrook, supra, 224 Conn. at 589; Hannan v. Handy, 104 Conn. 653, 658, 134 A. 71 (1926) (lien may be valid where purchase contract provides that title will not pass until the completion of a building on the seller's land); Hillhouse v. Pratt, 74 Conn. 113, 117, 49 A. 905 (1901) (lien may arise where purchase contract requires buyer to commence construction of house before title will pass); Seipold v. Gibbud, 110 Conn. 392, 396, 148 A. 328 (1930) (lien may arise where the purchase agreement requires the buyer to build a house on the property).
The contract between the Nortons and Granite Rock did not require Granite Rock to do any work on the Property prior to the passage of title. The Nortons were obligated to convey the Property regardless of the work, if any, performed by Granite Rock on the Property and Granite Rock was obligated to purchase the Property "as is."
Since Granite Rock was not the owner of the Property at the time that Granite Rock contracted to perform services on the Property, the mechanic's lien of Rollar is invalid and the facts of this case do not bring the lien within any judicially recognized exception to the prohibition of liens on after-acquired property.
Connecticut General Statutes § 49-34 provides that a mechanic's lien is not valid unless it is recorded with the town clerk within ninety days after the work has been completed. The only evidence offered by Rollar with respect to the completion date of the work was the mechanic's lien signed by Robin Lewis French, and various bills and invoices identified by Walter Lewis.
Ms. French admitted that she had no knowledge of any specifics about any work done by Rollar on the Property. Thus, she swore to the information in the mechanic's lien without any knowledge that the information was true, further undermining the validity of the lien which, under § 49-34, must be "subscribed and sworn to by the claimant."
Ms. French further testified that her father advised her to sign the mechanic's lien because of the activity taken in a mortgage foreclosure action on the Property. Mr. Lewis was probably referring to the action by the Gretchyns in this case. They filed a Demand for Disclosure of Defense on Granite Rock on January 2, 2002.
Walter Lewis offered no documentation which specified the dates on which work was done on the Property. Instead, he offered a series of invoices to "Granite Rock Associates" with no address specified. Those invoices had never actually been sent to Granite Rock. Therefore, in this case, unlike most cases in which a mechanic's lienor seeks to establish dates on which it rendered services, the invoices are questionable evidence of anything. Three invoices from 1998 are typed. The rest of the invoices are handwritten. Mr. Lewis also introduced a series of receipts, many of which are from Lowe's and Home Depot. Most of the receipts have no reference whatsoever to the Property or Granite Rock. There are no receipts dated beyond the year 2000.
The only remaining evidence as to the dates on which the work was performed by Rollar at the Property came from testimony of Walter Lewis and an Owner's Affidavit dated January 6, 2000 signed by Granite Rock acting through Mario Tiberi.
The court does not find that Mr. Lewis' testimony was credible. By 2000 his friend, Keith Maynard, had lost interest in the Property when it appeared that nothing was occurring to further the business of Granite Rock on the Property. Rollar had lost interest as well, not having been paid anything for work performed in 1998 or 1999. The claim of work continuing in 2000 and 2001 arises from Rollar's need to comply with the time frames set forth in § 49-34, rather than from work actually occurring.
The Owner's Affidavit, which was presented to the Gretchyns in February 2000, when they loaned $300,000 to Granite Rock states:
That said Premises were fully completed, or any work which was done on said Premises were fully completed, more than 90 days prior to the date hereof and that all bills for labor and materials incurred in construction thereof have been fully paid and satisfied . . .
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Rollar has failed to prove that it did any work on the Property in 2001. Therefore, the mechanic's lien is also invalid because it was recorded with the town clerk on February 14, 2002, more than 90 days after Rollar completed work on the Property, which probably occurred in 1999.
As set forth above, Walter Lewis's daughter, the president of Rollar, was also an owner of Granite Rock. It is clear that Rollar and Granite Rock do not have the adverse relationship common to most property owners and mechanic's lienors. Rollar has taken no action to attempt to collect any amounts owed by Granite Rock, other than via the mechanic's lien. Not only has Granite Rock taken no action to invalidate Rollar's mechanic's lien, it has joined with Rollar in opposing the Gretchyns' attempt to invalidate the lien. In Rollar's action to foreclose its mechanic's lien, Granite Rock's Post-Trial Memorandum of Law states that "Granite Rock takes no position on the validity or priority of the mechanic's lien of Rollar Construction and Demolition, Inc." See Memorandum of Law at 1. Moreover, Granite Rock's only operating agreement was prepared by Rollar's attorney at the request of Walter Lewis, who controlled Rollar. Lewis participated in the decision to hire his attorney, Attorney Kraus, to represent Granite Rock. Lewis also participated in planning the "friendly foreclosure" which ultimately led to Granite Rock's acquisition of the Property from the Nortons.
The mechanic's lien statutes have the "remedial purpose of furnishing security for one who provides services or materials." HS Torrington Associates v. Lutz Engineering Co., 185 Conn. 549, 553, 441 A.2d 171 (1981); Henry F. Raab Connecticut, Inc. v. J.W. Fisher Co., 183 Conn. 108, 115, 438 A.2d 834 (1981). Such remedial purpose permits a mechanic's lien to take precedence over a mortgage filed before the lien was filed. See § 49-33(b); lien "takes precedence over any other encumbrance originating after the commencement of the services." The mechanic's lien statutes were not meant to serve as a vehicle through which the property owner and lienor can collude to defeat a bona fide mortgage. Rollar and Granite Rock are attempting to use those statutes for precisely that purpose in this case.
To summarize the foregoing, Rollar's mechanic's lien is invalid because Granite Rock did not own the Property at the time it contracted with Rollar for the work claimed in the mechanic's lien, the lien was filed more than 90 days after work had ceased on the property in violation of § 49-34, the lien was not validly subscribed and sworn to because the signer of the lien, Robin Lewis French, has admitted that she had no knowledge of the facts underlying the claims made in the lien, and, finally, the lien is the product of collusion by Granite Rock and Rollar with the primary purpose of defeating the Gretchyns' mortgage.
For the reasons set forth above, judgment may enter in favor of the defendants on Rollar's complaint.
By the court,
Aurigemma, J.