The recent, April 2011, tornadoes are a highly visible, if (thankfully!) rare impetus for construction and contracting work to happen in earnest in North Carolina, as well as in other places. We've been helped with some reporting that provides information on avoiding scams on the front end. But what about contractors who perform work and then go unpaid?
This article gives a (very!) brief introduction to that situation. Unfortunately, sometimes the contractors and subcontractors who work to build and improve residential and commercial properties go unpaid for one reason or another. Such people (or the companies they work for) perform quality work in good faith, and the North Carolina legislature has provided a legal framework to protect them and allow them to get paid.
The lien statute (44A of the North Carolina General Statutes) allows contractors and subcontractors to place a lien, which can vary depending on whether the contractor places it or the subcontractor does, on the property they improved.
But for such subcontractors and contractors, it is important that they not delay their actions. Even if they want to avoid litigation and "play nice," the window of time to preserve their rights is narrow. Only 120 days after the last date of work on the project can pass before the right to file a claim of lien expires. Similarly, even if a lien is filed, a formal lawsuit to enforce the lien right ("perfect" the lien) must be filed within 180 days of the last date that goods or services were furnished to the property.
Because of the specialized definitions, time frames, and issues involved, it is important to contact an attorney shortly after the invoices go unpaid, so that your rights can be preserved and protected. Filing the lien or the lawsuit does not always mean going to court. However, failing to do so can leave an innocent contractor or subcontractor without the compensation and legal remedy to which their hard work should entitle them.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Legalese for Non-lawyers
If you were ever one of the few people to brave the fine print of a legal document, whether it's a credit card offer, lease, mortgage document, or something else, you've probably found yourself immersed in a language that feels as foreign as any you've heard. One frustration I've heard repeated about the legal profession is that lawyers too often write (or talk) in "legalese."
This frustration is understandable, since most clients aren't trained in law, much less legalese. Attorneys eat, sleep, and breathe law for three years during law school, followed by a work life that can reinforce that immersion experience and leave clients at a loss for what, exactly, their lawyer is saying. To be sure, most of us attempt to bridge this gap. However, finding a lawyer who can translate "legalese" to more "lay" speech is no sure-fire proposition.
Why do lawyers keep using it, then, if clients prefer more "plain English" approaches?
The answer may be that many legal theories and concepts rely on specialized definitions. Just as a line cook at a restaurant may refer to "dropping" meat on the grill to mean putting an order of meat down to cook, lawyers may refer to "Res Ipsa" as a shorthand for res ipsa loquitor, a concept that in some cases, negligence speaks for itself and can be implied by the circumstances surrounding it, rather than having to be explicitly proved.
This legal concept isn't as important to this article as the concept that sometimes terms acquire an industry-specific meaning. Using those terms can be shorter than writing out the full explanation. The downside is that even if a lawyer seeks to use "plain English," he or she then runs the risk that the "plain English" approach won't protect the client as comprehensively as the "term of art."
Thus, the "plain English" legal movement relies on notions of fairness to bridge potential gaps. If a lawyer drafts a contract to say that John Smith agrees to sell 123 Main Street to Mary Jones, that lawyer is using fairness as a fall back position to make sure that the language of "grants, assigns, conveys and sells" will be "read into" the more plain phrasing.
When identifying a lawyer to represent you, it can be important to find someone who can understand and listen to your needs and keep you informed by bridging the gap between "legalese" and plain English. But the importance of finding someone who can also use the correct terms of art at the proper times is also important. As in many cases, the true mark of success in this regard often lies in striking the appropriate balance.
This frustration is understandable, since most clients aren't trained in law, much less legalese. Attorneys eat, sleep, and breathe law for three years during law school, followed by a work life that can reinforce that immersion experience and leave clients at a loss for what, exactly, their lawyer is saying. To be sure, most of us attempt to bridge this gap. However, finding a lawyer who can translate "legalese" to more "lay" speech is no sure-fire proposition.
Why do lawyers keep using it, then, if clients prefer more "plain English" approaches?
The answer may be that many legal theories and concepts rely on specialized definitions. Just as a line cook at a restaurant may refer to "dropping" meat on the grill to mean putting an order of meat down to cook, lawyers may refer to "Res Ipsa" as a shorthand for res ipsa loquitor, a concept that in some cases, negligence speaks for itself and can be implied by the circumstances surrounding it, rather than having to be explicitly proved.
This legal concept isn't as important to this article as the concept that sometimes terms acquire an industry-specific meaning. Using those terms can be shorter than writing out the full explanation. The downside is that even if a lawyer seeks to use "plain English," he or she then runs the risk that the "plain English" approach won't protect the client as comprehensively as the "term of art."
Thus, the "plain English" legal movement relies on notions of fairness to bridge potential gaps. If a lawyer drafts a contract to say that John Smith agrees to sell 123 Main Street to Mary Jones, that lawyer is using fairness as a fall back position to make sure that the language of "grants, assigns, conveys and sells" will be "read into" the more plain phrasing.
When identifying a lawyer to represent you, it can be important to find someone who can understand and listen to your needs and keep you informed by bridging the gap between "legalese" and plain English. But the importance of finding someone who can also use the correct terms of art at the proper times is also important. As in many cases, the true mark of success in this regard often lies in striking the appropriate balance.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Welcome to Morrison Law Office
As the office begins its blog, I wanted to personally welcome those who participate, whether by reading, writing, commenting, or otherwise. I look forward to using this forum to address and discuss legal issues that are relevant and that arise out of current events or developments.
Join me here regularly as I discuss the state of the law, legal philosophy, the legal profession, and other topics. Feel free to comment as well, since I welcome all points of view and backgrounds.
Best,
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)