Brettschneider v. Wellman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[t]he mere lapse of time between the excavating and the building did not prevent the work from being continuous”
• noting that a “mere lapse of time” of approximately two months between excavation and construction of a house “did not prevent the work from being continuous” because there was no evidence of “abandonment”
• finding that a lien for work done subsequent to a mortgage can relate back to improvements done prior to the mortgage where the early improvements were done “in contemplation of and as a part of the entire project”
• although no abandonment found, court implicitly indicates that abandonment would prevent work from being continuous as required by case law
• “[T]he work of excavating the basement was clearly a part and parcel of the work of building the house. It was included in the ... contract to build.... The court could well find that it constituted the beginning of the construction of the house.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).