(a) Upon the hearing held on the application or motion set forth in section 49-35a, the lienor shall first be required to establish that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of his lien. Any person entitled to notice under section 49-35a may appear, be heard and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the validity of the lien should not be sustained or the amount of the lien claimed is excessive and should be reduced.

(b) Upon consideration of the facts before it, the court or judge may: (1) Deny the application or motion if probable cause to sustain the validity of the lien is established; or (2) order the lien discharged if (A) probable cause to sustain its validity is not established, or (B) by clear and convincing evidence its invalidity is established; or (3) reduce the amount of the lien if the amount is found to be excessive by clear and convincing evidence; or (4) order the lien discharged or reduce the amount of the lien conditioned upon the posting of a bond, with surety, in a sum deemed sufficient by the judge to indemnify the lienor for any damage which may occur by the discharge or the reduction of amount.

(P.A. 75-418, S. 5, 10; P.A. 76-290, S. 4, 6; P.A. 79-602, S. 90.)

History: P.A. 76-290 added Subsec. (b)(4) authorizing court to discharge or reduce lien upon posting of bond with surety sufficient to indemnify lien or for damage which may occur; P.A. 79-602 rephrased provisions to replace “such” where appearing.

Cited. 180 C. 501. Challenge by general contractor to constitutionality of mechanic's lien statutes discussed. 185 C. 583. Cited. 188 C. 253; 209 C. 185; 224 C. 29; 235 C. 595.

Cited. 5 CA 106; 6 CA 180; Id., 443; 9 CA 682; 15 CA 633; 27 CA 199; 41 CA 737. Trial court did not improperly discharge a lien under section without first holding required hearing because, despite defendant's earlier filing for a continuance, defendant failed to appear at the hearing and forfeited his rights against plaintiff. 54 CA 355. Trial court properly discharged lien, even though it did not specifically state the standard of proof it applied, since trial court's actions and duties are presumed to have been performed in conformity with the law unless it appears to the contrary. 61 CA 156. Nothing prevents a discharge order from being superseded by another discharge order made during a subsequent proceeding in the same case. 86 CA 692.

Cited. 33 CS 552.