Here’s an excerpt from current statute.Įxcept as otherwise provided by this part, notice by mail under this part shall be given by registered or certified mail, express mail, or overnight delivery by an express service carrier. “In short, in a case where defendant has admitted that notice was served in the statutorily prescribed manner, plaintiff need not comply with the statutory requirements for proving that notice was served in the statutorily prescribed manner.” Takeaway & Best PracticeĬalifornia statute has since changed and proof of document delivery is vital.
#CHECK ON CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT TRIAL#
Then, in 2016, the appeals court determined Hub served the preliminary notice in compliance with the statute, and subsequently reversed the trial court’s decision. In 2013, Hub filed suit to enforce its mechanic’s lien and the trial court invalidated Hub’s lien because “plaintiff ‘cannot provide sufficient proof of service by documentation of the return receipt of certified mail, a photocopy of the record of delivery and receipt maintained by the post office, showing the date of delivery and to whom delivered … as required under the statute in effect at the time the effectiveness of the preliminary notice as given is sought to be established.’” Further, has acknowledged in verified discovery responses that it received the preliminary notice which served.
Postal Service website tracks certified mailed items and the tracking for the certified mailed items indicates that they were all delivered. Plaintiff did not request, and did not pay a fee to the United States Postal Service for, a “return receipt” for the notices. Postal Service sufficient to serve all certified mail items and possesses a `Certified Mailer Manifest for: 3-16-12′ reflecting as addressees and bearing an Official Stamp of the United States Postal Service.’ “Plaintiff ‘furnished postage to the U.S. BUT, Hub did not have a signed return receipt. Hub served a preliminary notice via certified mail and could demonstrate, via the USPS website, that the notice was delivered & that Esperanza received the notice. (Hub) furnished rebar to a private project owned by Esperanza Charities, Inc. In 2016, an appeals court reinstated the lien rights for the subcontractor. The property owner argued the subcontractor did not comply with statutory requirements for service of the notice & the circuit court agreed, subsequently invalidating the subcontractor’s lien. The subcontractor eventually filed a lien for $81,857.55, because the general contractor failed to remit payment. In March 2012, in compliance with California’s mechanic’s lien statute, a subcontractor served its preliminary notice via certified mail, with no return receipt requested.
#CHECK ON CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT CODE#
“Civil Code former section 3097.1 provided that: ‘Proof that the preliminary 20-day notice required by Section 3097 was served in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 3097 shall be made as follows: (a) If served by mail, by the proof of service affidavit described in subdivision (c) of this section accompanied either by the return receipt of certified or registered mail, or by a photocopy of the record of delivery and receipt maintained by the post office, showing the date of delivery and to whom delivered, or, in the event of nondelivery, by the returned envelope itself.’” In July 2012, various portions of California’s mechanic’s lien statute changed, including service and proof of service of a preliminary notice, specifically to prove service of preliminary notice via affidavit and a copy of the return receipt. The Value in Serving Notices via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
0 kommentar(er)
