05-08-09 JAN SCHADRACK AND NGOC NGUYEN, husband and wife v.
K.P. BURKE BUILDER, LLC AND JAN SCHADRACK AND NGOC
NGUYEN, husband and wife v. L.E.D. ELECTRICAL AND
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, LLC
A-5035-07T3/A-5063-07T3 (consolidated)
A de novo standard of judicial review applies to
contentions that the arbitration of a construction lien claim
violated the statutory requirements of the Construction Lien Law
("CLL"), N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-1 to -38. However, utilizing that
review standard, we are satisfied that the CLL arbitrations in
these two related cases did not sufficiently, if at all,
transgress the statute so as to require forfeiture of the
respective contractors' liens.
Specifically, in Schadrack v. LED, we conclude that the
arbitrator's acceptance and consideration of supplemental
documents from the lienor, over the homeowners' objection, did
not violate the terms of the CLL and instead was a matter within
the arbitrator's discretion under the Rules of the American
Arbitration Association. We also find that the lienor's
misidentification on the lien form of the corporate name of the
project's general contractor was a de minimus error that did not
require forfeiture.
In Schadrack v. Burke, we conclude that the lienor's
untimely service of a request for arbitration was
inconsequential because the homeowners failed to demonstrate the
material prejudice required under the CLL's service provision,
N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-7, to warrant forfeiture. Section 7's
requirement of proof of material prejudice is not nullified by
Section 5(c) of the CLL, N.J.S.A. 2A:44-5(c), that generally
calls for strict compliance with statutory requirements in
residential lien cases.
