New Hampshire Attorneys Mcgrath Law Firm Concord NH

Efficiency, Excellence of Work Product, Zealous Representation

Practice Areas

Personal Injury
Medical Malpractice
Complex Litigation
Civil Litigation
Real Estate Law
Business Law


Featured Posts

Recent New Hampshire cases on mechanics liens limits subcontractors remedies.

By

Recent New Hampshire cases on mechanics liens limits subcontractors remedies.  Two recent cases have substantially narrowed a subcontractor’s ability to recover from a property owner for the labor and materials they provide on  a construction project.
 
In the past, subcontractors who were unable to obtain payment from a general contractor or obtain a mechanics lien have usually asserted some non-contractual or quasi- contractual theories of relief such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit to recover from a property owner.  Two recent cases have substantially narrowed a subcontractor’s ability to recover from a property owner  for the labor and materials they provide on a construction project under these theories.
 
In Axenics v. Turner Construction Co., the New Hampshire Supreme Court basically adopted a rule that a subcontractor cannot recover against a property owner upon some implied promise to pay arising from the owner’s receipt and acceptance of the benefit and labor furnished.  The court did leave the door open for special circumstances which would justify the requiring the owner to pay, such as when the owner accepts benefits rendered under such circumstances as reasonably notify the owner that the one performing such services expect the owner to compensate the subcontractor.
 
In Mangiardi Brothers Trucking, Inc. V. Dewey Enviromental, LLC, the Federal District court of New Hampshire limited what “special circumstances” meet the Axenics’ test.  In Mangiardi, a third tier subcontractor agreed to remove hazardous waste from a job site in exchange for a second tier subcontractors promise to pay for the removal.  The second tier subcontractor failed to pay for the removal services and the third tier subcontactor sued a number of defendants, including the property owners.  The defendants relied on the Axenics’ ruling and Mangiardi argued special circumstances existed because (1) it believed the subcontractor was going out of business and contemplating bankruptcy and (2) the property owner may not have paid the general contractor in full for the removal of the hazardous waste.  The court found these situations did not meet the definition of “special circumstances” because the third tier subcontractor did not allege any circumstances that would reasonably notify the property owner that it expected the property owner to pay its invoices if the other contractors did not. The court went on to find that neither  another contractors potential bankruptcy nor the possibility that a property owner has not paid another contractor justify a claim against the property owner under quasi-contract theories. 
 
These cases make it even more important to use your statutory rights under the mechanics lien statute to protect your rights. 
 
McGrath Law Firm, PA attorneys often handle such matters successfully. You can meet with one of our experienced attorneys at McGrath Law Firm and obtain an evaluation as how these decisions may affect your rights to recover for the labor and materials you provided on a construction project.
To learn more about how mechanics lien statutes can be used to protect your business or learn more about  your legal rights, contact an experienced and results oriented attorney at the McGrath Law Firm, PA. To make an appointment, call (603) 224-7111 or (800) 283-1380, or visit www.mcgrathlawfirm.com.

Recent New Hampshire cases on mechanics lien limits subcontractors remedies.

By

Recent New Hampshire cases on mechanics liens limits subcontractors remedies.  Two recent cases have substantially narrowed a subcontractor’s ability to recover from a property owner for the labor and materials they provide on  a construction project.
 
In the past, subcontractors who were unable to obtain payment from a general contractor or obtain a mechanics lien have usually asserted some non-contractual or quasi- contractual theories of relief such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit to recover from a property owner.  Two recent cases have substantially narrowed a subcontractor’s ability to recover from a property owner  for the labor and materials they provide on a construction project under these theories.
 
In Axenics v. Turner Construction Co., the New Hampshire Supreme Court basically adopted a rule that a subcontractor cannot recover against a property owner upon some implied promise to pay arising from the owner’s receipt and acceptance of the benefit and labor furnished.  The court did leave the door open for special circumstances which would justify the requiring the owner to pay, such as when the owner accepts benefits rendered under such circumstances as reasonably notify the owner that the one performing such services expect the owner to compensate the subcontractor.
 
In Mangiardi Brothers Trucking, Inc. V. Dewey Enviromental, LLC, the Federal District court of New Hampshire limited what “special circumstances” meet the Axenics’ test.  In Mangiardi, a third tier subcontractor agreed to remove hazardous waste from a job site in exchange for a second tier subcontractors promise to pay for the removal.  The second tier subcontractor failed to pay for the removal services and the third tier subcontactor sued a number of defendants, including the property owners.  The defendants relied on the Axenics’ ruling and Mangiardi argued special circumstances existed because (1) it believed the subcontractor was going out of business and contemplating bankruptcy and (2) the property owner may not have paid the general contractor in full for the removal of the hazardous waste.  The court found these situations did not meet the definition of “special circumstances” because the third tier subcontractor did not allege any circumstances that would reasonably notify the property owner that it expected the property owner to pay its invoices if the other contractors did not. The court went on to find that neither  another contractors potential bankruptcy nor the possibility that a property owner has not paid another contractor justify a claim against the property owner under quasi-contract theories. 
 
These cases make it even more important to use your statutory rights under the mechanics lien statute to protect your rights. 
 
McGrath Law Firm, PA attorneys often handle such matters successfully. You can meet with one of our experienced attorneys at McGrath Law Firm and obtain an evaluation as how these decisions may affect your rights to recover for the labor and materials you provided on a construction project.
To learn more about how mechanics lien statutes can be used to protect your business or learn more about  your legal rights, contact an experienced and results oriented attorney at the McGrath Law Firm, PA. To make an appointment, call (603) 224-7111 or (800) 283-1380, or visit www.mcgrathlawfirm.com.

RECENT NEW HAMPSHIRE CASES ON MECHANICS LIENS LIMITS SUBCONTRACTORS REMEDIES

By

Recent New Hampshire cases on mechanics liens limits subcontractors remedies.  Two recent cases have substantially narrowed a subcontractor’s ability to recover from a property owner for the labor and materials they provide on  a construction project.
 
In the past, subcontractors who were unable to obtain payment from a general contractor or obtain a mechanics lien have usually asserted some non-contractual or quasi- contractual theories of relief such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit to recover from a property owner.  Two recent cases have substantially narrowed a subcontractor’s ability to recover from a property owner  for the labor and materials they provide on a construction project under these theories.
 
In Axenics v. Turner Construction Co., the New Hampshire Supreme Court basically adopted a rule that a subcontractor cannot recover against a property owner upon some implied promise to pay arising from the owner’s receipt and acceptance of the benefit and labor furnished.  The court did leave the door open for special circumstances which would justify the requiring the owner to pay, such as when the owner accepts benefits rendered under such circumstances as reasonably notify the owner that the one performing such services expect the owner to compensate the subcontractor.
 
In Mangiardi Brothers Trucking, Inc. V. Dewey Enviromental, LLC, the Federal District court of New Hampshire limited what “special circumstances” meet the Axenics’ test.  In Mangiardi, a third tier subcontractor agreed to remove hazardous waste from a job site in exchange for a second tier subcontractors promise to pay for the removal.  The second tier subcontractor failed to pay for the removal services and the third tier subcontactor sued a number of defendants, including the property owners.  The defendants relied on the Axenics’ ruling and Mangiardi argued special circumstances existed because (1) it believed the subcontractor was going out of business and contemplating bankruptcy and (2) the property owner may not have paid the general contractor in full for the removal of the hazardous waste.  The court found these situations did not meet the definition of “special circumstances” because the third tier subcontractor did not allege any circumstances that would reasonably notify the property owner that it expected the property owner to pay its invoices if the other contractors did not. The court went on to find that neither  another contractors potential bankruptcy nor the possibility that a property owner has not paid another contractor justify a claim against the property owner under quasi-contract theories. 
 
These cases make it even more important to use your statutory rights under the mechanics lien statute to protect your rights. 
 
McGrath Law Firm, PA attorneys often handle such matters successfully. You can meet with one of our experienced attorneys at McGrath Law Firm and obtain an evaluation as how these decisions may affect your rights to recover for the labor and materials you provided on a construction project.
To learn more about how mechanics lien statutes can be used to protect your business or learn more about  your legal rights, contact an experienced and results oriented attorney at the McGrath Law Firm, PA. To make an appointment, call (603) 224-7111 or (800) 283-1380, or visit www.mcgrathlawfirm.com.

New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act

By

The New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act has commonly been used to protect buyers and consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices.  What is not commonly known is the Act also protects sellers in business transactions in  circumstances where a buyer engages in conduct so objectionable it reaches a level of “rascality” that would raise an  eyebrow of someone accustomed to the rough and tumble of business.
The statute allows the court to award the seller not only reasonable attorney’s fees but up to 3 times the actual damages if the objectionable conduct was found to be a willful and knowing violation of the statute.
In Milford Lumber Co., v. RCB Realty, Inc., the New Hampshire Supreme Court awarded damages under the Consumer Protection Act where a buyer did not only simply fail to pay invoices but made intentionally vague representations regarding the buyer’s relationship with other parties to continue receiving building materials then use those same vague representations to deny liability for paying the invoices.
McGrath Law Firm, PA attorneys often handle such matters successfully. You can meet with one of our experienced attorneys at McGrath Law Firm and obtain an evaluation as to your Consumer Protect Act claim.
To learn more about how the Consumer Protection Act can be used to protect your business or learn more about  your legal rights, contact an experienced and results oriented attorney at the McGrath Law Firm, PA. To make an appointment, call (603) 224-7111 or (800) 283-1380, or visit www.mcgrathlawfirm.com.

Establishing Paternity With Mt. Pleasant Family Lawyers

By

Whenever a child is born, there is no question as to whom the mother of the child is.  However, determining who the father may not be as easy. For married couples, a husband is presumed to be the father of the child. A problem arises when the father of the child does not immediately come forward to take responsibility or, possibly, when a birth mother doesn’t want him to.

The Importance of Establishing Paternity

In South Carolina, the establishment of paternity can bring about many benefits to both the father of the child and the birth mother. Once paternity is established, the father is afforded rights to participate in the raising of the child. These include rights to custody or visitation and legal decision-making. In addition to the rights of parentage, the birth mother can ensure that the father of the child is paying his fair share of the child’s costs. Further, the establishment of paternity can help ease the burden on a mother and can also encourage the sharing of parenting experiences.

Other very important reasons to establish paternity are the ability for the child to know and have a relationship with their father, access to the father’s medical history as well as the ability of the child to have access to Social Security or other government benefits in the event something were to happen to the father.

How is Paternity Established in South Carolina?

There are three ways to establish paternity among unmarried parents in South Carolina. First, a father that is present at the hospital can complete a Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement. This form does not require any type of DNA testing. It is simply the acknowledgement of the man signing the form as the father.

Second, the parents of a child may go to the State Office of Vital Records or the Vital Records Office in their county and complete a Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement. Essentially the same type of form that is available at the hospital, this is filled out after the child is born and does not require any DNA testing to prove conclusively that the child actually belongs to the purported father.

Lastly, a court or administrative order that is rendered can establish paternity. Such an order generally follows a low-cost DNA test that is either requested by the parties or ordered by the court to establish paternity.

A Few Words of Warning

The process of a man acknowledging that he is the father can seem simple, and for the most part it is. But the steps to acknowledge paternity without a DNA test or other testing should only be used when both of the parties are absolutely sure that the man filling out the acknowledgement form is actually the father. Once the form is filled out and processed by the state, all of the rights and responsibilities become effective and an error as to the real identity of the father can be a mess to sort out.

If you are a mother or a father that is attempting to establish paternity, the experienced family law attorneys at the McGrath Law Firm can assist you on your journey. It is not always clear how to proceed and a misstep can lead you to problems that you could easily avoid with the advice of our experienced South Carolina family law lawyers. Contact us today at 843-606-2755 or online for help.

Confidentiality of Settlement Offers Made In Divorce Mediation

By

In New Hampshire, settlement offers made in the mediation of a divorce case are, except in very rare circumstances, confidential.  The mediator will generally urge participants to feel free to be creative during mediation in trying to reach an out-of-court settlement of their divorce matter without fear that the terms proposed might be admissible at court if the case does not resolve in full at mediation. Such freedom to make creative attempts toward resolution often turns the tide in a difficult negotiation, and can bring the case to the much-hoped-for close just when agreement seemed completely out of range. If you would like to know more about the benefits of mediation and other ways to complete the divorce process with minimal court involvement and minimal litigation costs, experienced and attentive attorneys at the McGrath Law Firm are ready to help.  To make an appointment for a consultation, call (603) 224-7111 or (800) 283-1380, or visit www.mcgrathlawfirm.com.