The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bifferato
VINCENT A. BIFFERATO, ASSOCIATE JUDGE
This is the Court's decision on the above captioned case after a hearing before the Court October 10, 1968.
Plaintiff's Complaint and Statement of Claim for Mechanics' Lien was filed April 20, 1967. It is a claim for plumbing and heating work performed on the Slacum property pursuant to a contract with Master Home Builders, Inc.
Defendant, Master Home Builders, Inc., has not filed an Answer to the Complaint and Statement of Claim nor have they appeared. Slacums answered the Complaint and Statement of Claim and object to the Complaint and Claim alleging that the material furnished and the labor performed was not done so on the credit of the building, the claim was filed after the expiration of the lien period and the work was not performed in a workmanlike manner.
The Court is of the opinion that the work performed by the plaintiff was substantially completed on or before November 2, 1966, and that the lien period had expired at the time plaintiff filed the Complaint and Statement of Claim for Mechanics' Lien.
The Court bases its decision on the following facts:
Plaintiff on November 2, 1966, submitted a bill for the balance of monies due him on this particular job. Plaintiff's work records and time sheets do not reflect any work being performed on the Slacum job from that specific date, except visits to the Slacum home by plaintiff himself. Even though at the time plaintiff visited the Slacum home in January he installed a plate at the bottom of the heater and a new heating duct, this was only to correct the heating problem the Slacums were having. The installation of the plate at the bottom of the heater was an afterthought of the plaintiff. The installation, although done by plaintiff, of the extra heating duct was an attempt to correct a heating problem in one of the rooms.
This work is not sufficient to extend the lien period. Plaintiff had substantially completed hiswork on the Slacum property on or before November 2, 1966. Plaintiff and his men were only at the Slacum home sporadically after September 2, 1966, and no one appeared at the Slacum home after November 18, except plaintiff himself at the request of the Slacums to attempt to correct the heating deficiency.
Because of the above the Court need not go into the other contentions of either plaintiff or defendant and the Court finds in favor of defendants, William W. Slacum and Rose V. Slacum, his wife. Costs to be paid by plaintiff. Defendants' counsel is directed to present an appropriate Order.