WOODWORK SPECIALTIES CO V DUTCHMAN REMODELING INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_________________________________
WOODWORK SPECIALTIES CO.,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 186190
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 93-1292 CH
KAREN SUE SAXTON,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
HOMEOWNERS CONSTRUCTION
LIEN RECOVERY FUND,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
DUTCHMAN REMODELING, INC.,
NATIONAL LOAN SERVICE CENTER
STANDARD FEDERAL BANK, and FIRST
OF AMERICA BANK, MICHIGAN, N.A.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and O’Connell and T.L. Ludington*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
In this action tried before the bench, defendant Homeowners Construction Lien Recovery Fund
(the “Fund” hereinafter) appeals as of right the order of the circuit court entering judgment against the
Fund. We vacate the order appealed and remand.
As framed by the parties, the issue on appeal concerns whether the substantive provisions of the
Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1101 et seq.; MSA 26.316(101) et seq. (the “Act hereinafter),
allow plaintiff subcontractor to recover from the Fund under the particular facts of this case. However,
as a predicate matter, it must be determined whether plaintiff subcontractor complied with the
procedural requirements of the Act. Should it be found that plaintiff either failed to perfect its
construction lien or that it failed to comply with the Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund,
MCL 570.1201 et seq.; MSA 26.316(201) et seq., plaintiff will not be entitled to recover regardless of
the merit of its legal argument.1
Our review of the record indicates that plaintiff provided its notice of furnishing to the property
owner some seventy-six days after it first furnished labor and materials.2 The Act requires that notice be
provided within twenty days. MCL 570.1109(1); MSA 26.316(109)(1). While only substantial
compliance is necessary with respect to this procedural requirement, Vugterveen Systems, Inc v Olde
Millpond Corp, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket no. 102988, issued 3/18/97) slip op p 2, this
tardy filing raises some question as to whether the construction lien was properly perfected. Further,
assuming that plaintiff properly perfected its construction lien, we are not able to determine from the
record that plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery
Fund. MCL 570.1201(3); MSA 26.316(203)(3).
Therefore, because of these deficiencies in the record, we are unable to address the substance
of the circuit court’s decision. Accordingly, we vacate that decision and remand to allow the court to
address these predicate factual matters.
Vacated and remanded. The trial court is directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of
law consistent with this opinion. The trial court shall hold the hearing and render its decision within 56
days of the issuance of this opinion. We retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
1
The perfection of the lien does not appear to have been a disputed issue below. However, our review
of the lower court record indicates that if the lien was properly perfected, the “particular facts of this
case” may not have arisen and, therefore, there would be no need to address the legal issue presented
on this appeal. A condition precedent to the distribution of state monies is a properly perfected lien.
-2
2
We also note that Woodwork’s notice of furnishing was furnished to Saxton well after she paid
Dutchman in full.
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
