Hubble v. Lone Star Contracting Corp.
883 S.W.2d 379 | Court of Appeals of Texas | 1994
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Lone Star Contracting sued to foreclose a mechanic's lien after the property owner stopped making progress payments. The owner argued the lien was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court ruled that as long as the construction contract remains active and hasn't been formally abandoned or rejected by either party, the lien deadline doesn't start running—even if the owner breaches by withholding payment. This protects contractors who continue work despite payment delays.
Key Takeaways
- •File your lien affidavit promptly when payment is missed—don't wait to see if the owner will catch up. Lone Star filed within months of the missed draws.
- •Keep working or clearly communicate that you're stopping work. Abandoning the job or accepting the owner's repudiation can trigger the statute of limitations and kill your lien rights.
- •Non-payment alone is not enough to end the contract. The owner must actively repudiate (show fixed intention to abandon) the contract for the lien clock to start ticking.
Repudiation is conduct which shows a fixed intention to abandon, renounce, and refuse to perform.
Frequently Asked Question
If an owner stops paying me but the contract is still technically active, can I still file a lien after four years?
Yes, under Texas law. The four-year statute of limitations doesn't start running as long as the construction contract remains continuing and neither party has formally repudiated it. Non-payment alone doesn't end the contract. However, you should file your lien affidavit as soon as payment is missed to protect yourself and avoid disputes about when the clock started.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.
Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.
Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.