Property liens; require that lis pendens notice of shall be filed within 30 days after the commencement of the action.
Impact
The implications of HB886 if enacted would center around the enforcement of construction liens. It explicitly outlines that for a lien to remain enforceable, a notice must be filed, thereby establishing clear legal timelines for the enforcement of claims. As a result, this could lead to fewer disputes regarding the validity of liens and improve the position of contractors and subcontractors in claiming their dues against a property owner or contractor. Furthermore, the retroactive effect of this act ensures that past transactions might also come under this regulatory framework, affecting how real estate transactions are processed moving forward. Discussions around the bill have indicated that while many support it for its clarity, there are concerns regarding the implications for property owners and the ability to contest such liens.
Summary
House Bill 886 proposes amendments to Section 85-7-405 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, specifically aiming to streamline the processes related to property liens. The bill mandates that a lis pendens notice of a lien must be filed within thirty days after the initiation of an action. This change intends to clarify the time frame for filing such notices, which is a critical aspect for parties involved in property transactions and construction projects. By requiring a timely filing, the bill seeks to enhance transparency and ensure that all involved parties are aware of potential claims against a property. Moreover, pertinent sections regarding liens on real estate are brought forward for potential amendments, suggesting a broader examination of related laws in the future.
Contention
Notably, discussions regarding HB886 reveal some contention particularly among property owners. While supporters laud the bill for bringing efficiency to lien processing, critics argue that the requirement to file notices within a very short time frame could disadvantage property owners who may not be immediately aware of all claims against their property. Additionally, there is concern among some stakeholders that this bill may disproportionately favor contractors at the expense of property owners' rights, particularly in scenarios where owners may be unaware of services or materials provided by subcontractors without their direct contract.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, requiring courts to make a finding that forfeiture is not excessive, restricting actions prior to commencement of forfeiture proceedings, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence and authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants.