Blog
Real Estate & Property Law

No Lien Clause in Contract

By
Eric H. Schunk
July 2, 2014
Share this post

Validity and Enforcement of No-Lien Clauses in Construction Contracts

Materialmen’s and Mechanic’s Liens remain one of the best sources of obtaining payment without pressing forward with litigation in Colorado. The lien statute provides additional security to laborers and materialmen who improve/enhance real property and prevents unjust enrichment. However, the lien statute (C.R.S. § 38-22-101 et seq.) does permit parties to a contract to forfeit or waive their lien rights as codified under C.R.S. § 38-22-119. As a practical matter parties can waive or agree to forfeit lien rights arising in the context of construction contracts involving owner/contractor and the subcontractor which may substantially affect their decision to enter into the contract.

While the right to a lien can be waived in this Colorado, such no-lien clauses to be enforceable need to be supported by either (1) consideration or (2) estoppel in order to be enforceable. Woodcrest Homes, Inc. v. First Nat’l Bank, 11 B.R. 342, aff’d in part and rev’d on other grounds, 15 B.R. 886 (D. Colo. 1981). Generally speaking, consideration involves the exchange for value for relinquishing this particular right. By merely entering into the contract could be argued and may be deemed by a court not to be sufficient consideration. Estoppel occurs where a statement is made and the paying party relied on such statement to his detriment.

A common mistake made by owners and contractors is that after successfully negotiating such no-lien clauses, they fail to record such construction contract in the county where the real property is located. See C.R.S. § 38-22-101(3).

Furthermore, Colorado courts strictly construe and employ the rule of contra preferentem (construing such clauses against the draftor) in reading such “no-lien” clauses. If the court is able to find an ambiguity in the no-lien clause, such doubt results in the clause being generally stricken and in favor of allowing a lien. Bishop v. Moore, 137 Colo. 263, 323 P.2d 897 (1958).

Subscribe to newsletter

Subscribe to receive the latest blog posts to your inbox every week.

By subscribing you agree to with our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

CTA Card

We specialize in bespoke solutions for hard-to-place merchants, offering tailored support and fast approvals. Our team ensures you have the secure, efficient payment processes needed to succeed.

We’re Ready to Stand By Your Side

Whether you're facing a challenging dispute or need guidance through complex legal matters, we are ready to provide the support and expertise you deserve.

Contact us today, and let’s work together to achieve the best possible outcome for you.

By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.