Shop tries new payment techniques. Block aircraft with tug!

[Bell206]

Would I perform 18k$ worth of services without asking them? Absolutely! 100%. Of course, that's only if I can hold their airplane indefinitely as a hostage and make them pay me before I release it.

Ha. Well you'd only do it once... unless you're a glutton for punishment.

he mx shop I just did my annual with did exactly that

I believe we discussed that in another thread. Regardless, since no one holds a gun to your head to take your aircraft to a shop, you as owner are responsible for a certain level of due diligence. Drop off the aircraft and tell them simply "fix it" or "inspect it", then get surprised when they do and charge you for it? I believe this is exactly what the Reddit OP did when it came to getting the "extra" mx done. You don't know how many owners have told me "do whatever it takes to finish the job." Not.

 

[Ventucky Red]

doesnt matter. . the proper way is through the legal system. File a lien against the plane if its for non-payment. You cant hold the property that isnt yours. The law enforcement people should have just forced the owner to hand over the plane. Now, whether its flyable or airworthy is another question .. . but the plane should have been handed over regardless of the payment status.

Yes, you are right and this can get a little dicey and for that there are liens.. But log books and the refusal to release them without payment, from what I can see breaks no laws. In my eyes, this is collateral to ensure that I get paid.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Where is Kevin Lacey when you need a plane snatched?

This is a job for the stealthy moves of Mike Kennedy. Someone needs to slither in and fly her out...

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I believe we discussed that in another thread.

Yeah, we did discuss it (thanks for the input on that by the way, it's helpful for avoiding future issues).

Regardless, since no one holds a gun to your head to take your aircraft to a shop, you as owner are responsible for a certain level of due diligence.

I agree. Though as a matter of pragmatism it can be difficult to do your due diligence on a shop when there aren't always a lot of credible reviews for them. Unlike places like, say, Jiffy Lube where there will be 10000 Google reviews and trends will be easily identifiable -- that doesn't exist in aircraft world. You might see a few reviews, maybe dozens if it's a big shop? But usually you're going based off word of mouth -- or if you're in a tight spot (e.g., broken down somewhere) -- whoever is available. That doesn't always leave you in a position of power to make the most informed choice.

I think the best insurance against this sort of bad actor (of which the shop I went to was ***definitely*** one, for myriad reasons) is a written agreement on service levels and expectations. Codify exactly what you're expecting. If they won't agree to it, find someone who will.

 

[Half Fast]

Y'know, every time I read one of these tales I'm glad I have my airplane work done in my own hangar. My plane doesn't leave my control. I also participate in the work as much as possible, so I know what's being done and how it's being done and can throw a flag if necessary.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Yes, you are right and this can get a little dicey and for that there are liens.. But log books and the refusal to release them without payment, from what I can see breaks no laws. In my eyes, this is collateral to ensure that I get paid.

I think there you have a problem. The bailee performed no work on the logbooks, and it could be legitimately argued the bailee has no claim on them. No different than a mechanic who works on a car, releases to the possession of the owner but keeps the owners briefcase. The logs are associated with the airplane, and have value, but aren't the airplane or the purpose for which the bailment was created.

The airplane is the security interest, not the logs. I would think the better choice would be to refuse to sign the return to service until payment was made, if the logs are to enter the picture.

In my case, Maryland Code said I could keep the horses as security interest, but had no legitimate claim on the owner's saddles.

 

[frfly172]

I would like to hear both sides of the story. Evidently a verbal contract was assumed,maybe by both sides . Getting a quick resolution probably won’t happen in the court system.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I would like to hear both sides of the story. Evidently a verbal contract was assumed,maybe by both sides . Getting a quick resolution probably won’t happen in the court system.

Me too. If the avionics shop as bailee released the aircraft to the mechanic without an Express agreement, and failed to maintain a reasonable duty of care to supervise the mechanics work in the owners interest, the avionics shop may bear some liability.

 

[Half Fast]

Me too. If the avionics shop as bailee released the aircraft to the mechanic without an Express agreement, and failed to maintain a reasonable duty of care to supervise the mechanics work in the owners interest, the avionics shop may bear some liability.

I agree (and wrote something similar above), but since both shops have the same owner it might get confusing about who the bailee was, the shop or the (common) owner.

 

[Bell206]

is a written agreement on service levels and expectations. Codify exactly what you're expecting. If they won't agree to it, find someone who will.

This is the due diligence I'm refering to. Reviews and other recommendations need context to be of any value. Even personal ones. Learning and understanding the tasks you need performed, the references to be used, and the stipulation on how discrepancies will be handled is all in your wheelhouse. Any good shop/ mechanic would agree as well.

But log books and the refusal to release them without payment, from what I can see breaks no laws. In my eyes, this is collateral to ensure that I get paid.

FWIW: while it may not break any laws in your eyes, the existing laws wont offer any protections for you as well with just the logbooks. If you're going to hold "collateral" hold the aircraft in accordance with your state's laws.

 

[cowman]

Sounds like there was a lot of ASSuming going on between parties not talking to each other. But who the heck does $18k worth of work without discussing it with the owner? Unless we discuss it ahead of time, I expect to be called if there's more than a couple-hundred $ discrepancy and (so far) I always have been.

 

[PPC1052]

I'm trespassing when sitting in my aircraft attempting to leave?

When they have a colorable right to retain possession and you refuse to leave the premises after being asked? Yep.

 

[PPC1052]

Regardless, I have to ask, would you perform $18K worth of services for someone without asking them first?

I have seen it happen for over $200,000 in work.

 

[Racerx]

It's been a long time since I've had to file a lien and my eyes glaze over reading all the jargon. So I got an attorney involved. But I have never heard of requiring possession to file a mechanics lien. However, I don't believe a sub contractor could file a lien without a contract.

I'd like to hear the other side. But seeing as this story came from a firsthand witness it lays a little more credibility.

 

[Racerx]

You don't know how many owners have told me "do whatever it takes to finish the job." Not.

This is where email comes in handy. Removes the he said she said as it's written down

 

[OSUAV8TER]

Guys, this is James Gallagher of Gallagher Aviation (www.gallagheraviationllc.com). I am not the James Gallagher in question as part of this dispute. I have never met the guy, never heard of the guy, no relation to him, and have never done business with him. I've been receiving a lot of hate mail and I get it, this is frustrating, but we are not the same.

 

[Tokirbymd]

I see a james gallagher. . is this the same James Gallagher of Gallagher aviation that does all the Whelen LED lights on all the forums that I see ? Somehow I think they are different, but this bad press would suck regardless of whether its the same or different.

no different Gallagher

 

[gismo]

Guys, as one of the very early participants on PoA I want to strongly affirm that James Gallagher of Gallagher Aviation (Whelen dealer in Ohio) is in no way affiliated with the Jim Gallagher who apparently owns the avionics and maintenance shops in PA. James has been getting angry communications from some folks who are mistakenly attacking the wrong person. I've had personal dealings with James from Ohio and found him to be of very high integrity.

-lance

 

[Bell206]

I have seen it happen for over $200,000 in work.

Agree, especially with turbines and helicopter. But never said it didn't happen. Just from my experience as a billing mx provider and assisting others at your level, its not often where the owner was completely in the dark on said costs.

But seeing as this story came from a firsthand witness it lays a little more credibility.

Not from my experiences. Without the other firsthand witness to chime its still one opinion.

This is where email comes in handy. Removes the he said she said as it's written down

Sure, provided the opposite person, which in my case is the owner, and wants to play along.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

It's been a long time since I've had to file a lien and my eyes glaze over reading all the jargon. So I got an attorney involved. But I have never heard of requiring possession to file a mechanics lien. However, I don't believe a sub contractor could file a lien without a contract.

I'd like to hear the other side. But seeing as this story came from a firsthand witness it lays a little more credibility.

Not a matter of requiring possession to file a lien. It's a matter of a bailee having the right to retain possession of the bailed property upon which the debt is owed while obtaining the lien and the court's writ to sell the property at auction.

You can let the bailor take the property and still get a lien, but it surely complicates collecting on it.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

This is where email comes in handy. Removes the he said she said as it's written down

Texting works even better. Everybody carry s their phone.

 

[forsonsinc]

Guys, this is James Gallagher of Gallagher Aviation (www.gallagheraviationllc.com). I am not the James Gallagher in question as part of this dispute. I have never met the guy, never heard of the guy, no relation to him, and have never done business with him. I've been receiving a lot of hate mail and I get it, this is frustrating, but we are not the same.

Hi james , sorry for your inconvenience with a bad situation.

 

[Katamarino]

Texting works even better. Everybody carry s their phone.

I've heard a rumour that many phones can send and receive email.

 

[Katamarino]

I had a shop in New Zealand (Oceania Aviation in Auckland) perform thousands of dollars of extra work and then demand payment even when we had an email agreement stating what was to be done, with an estimate. A place in Australia did something similar. So it doesn't surprise me at all to hear of other shops doing this.

Such shops seem to rely on the fact that it's costly and time consuming to resolve through the courts, to try and extort owners.

 

[Racerx]

 

[flyingron]

Depends on the particular state law. In some states once the provider has custody of the aircraft to perform the work a lien is implied. Some states also allow the provider to retain custody until the bill is paid. Now getting aggressive to enforce the lien is not included. But as always there's two sides to this story.

You don't enforce liens like that in any state I am familiar with. A lien prevents sale without recovering the interest. In some cases they can retain possession, but it appears here that he's in possession (sitting in the plane on the ramp) when someone blocked his path.

State law really doesn't mean much. Security interest on aircraft has to be filed with Joklahoma City.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Here is the state law regarding aircraft in Maryland. Any bailee who performs certain work on an aircraft has a lien on the aircraft by statute. The bailor, if the amount owed is in dispute may regain possession of the aircraft from the lienor in possession, but only by posting a bond which covers the double the disputed amount.

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/commercial-law/title-16/subtitle-2/16-202/

 

[Bell206]

State law really doesn't mean much.

You may want to read up on that a bit more as when it comes to aircraft mechanics liens, state law is everything. Now some/most state aircraft mx lien laws require the lien to be recorded with the FAA in order to be locally "perfected". However, there are a few states that do not have an established process/statute for aircraft mx liens and the FAA will not accept/record liens from those states. There is guidance on this. For example, as of 2005, North Carolina was one of the states the FAA would not accept an aircraft mx lien record as shown below. Regardless, aircraft mx liens can be very complex and should not be taken lightly by both sides.
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...20467/artisan-liens-on-aircraft-recordability

 

[Chip Sylverne]

And in PA , the scene of OP's calamity, the Code the bailee has an excuse not to deliver until his lien is satisfied.

https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-13-pacsa-commercial-code/pa-csa-sect-13-7403.html

 

[schmookeeg]

I would like to hear both sides of the story. Evidently a verbal contract was assumed,maybe by both sides . Getting a quick resolution probably won’t happen in the court system.

I don't need to hear the other side. If you block a departing aircraft with a tug, you have escalated well beyond reasonableness, you're the a-hole, and you're in the wrong.

 

[flyingron]

And in PA , the scene of OP's calamity, the Code the bailee has an excuse not to deliver until his lien is satisfied.

https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-13-pacsa-commercial-code/pa-csa-sect-13-7403.html

It appears the shop was not in possession of the aircraft at the time. It's one thing to keep it locked up in your hangar. It's quite another to try to wrest possession away from the rightful owner. You just can't go repo a plane on a lien without perfecting it.

 

[Racerx]

And in PA , the scene of OP's calamity, the Code the bailee has an excuse not to deliver until his lien is satisfied.

https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-13-pacsa-commercial-code/pa-csa-sect-13-7403.html

But we don't know there was a lien. Depending on how PA state law works it might be difficult for the subcontractor to file a lien as they apparently never had a signed contract with the owner who only gave approval to the avionics shop.

If I was the shop I'd try and get what I could while the plane was here. Then if I thought I was in the right I contact a lawyer about theft of services, small claims, lien etc

 

[Bell206]

It's one thing to keep it locked up in your hangar.

FYI: depending on how "possession" is defined in the state, it could simply mean the aircraft was in an area the shop controlled, i.e., the ramp.

you're in the wrong.

Not really. Without the full story we have no clue what actually happened. Quite possible the owner paid the 1st bill, then only paid $5200 toward the 2nd bill and told the shop to F-off on the rest. I've never blocked an aircraft with a tug before but have gained control of a couple to prevent their untimely departure. You'll find in some states possession is everything and until the facts come out thats where this shop might have been pushed to?? Nobody knows at this point.

Then if I thought I was in the right I contact a lawyer about theft of services, small claims, lien etc

FYI: in some states if you lose possession of the aircraft you lose your lien rights. And if the aircraft relocates out of state the cost to pursue litigation can become prohibitive especially for a small shop.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

In the common law of bailments, the term "lien" is any amount owed by the bailor to the bailee for services provided while the property is in the bailee's possession. I didn't mean it in this instance to be the result of a filing a legal action pursuant to statutory power of sale.

It appears the shop was not in possession of the aircraft at the time. It's one thing to keep it locked up in your hangar. It's quite another to try to wrest possession away from the rightful owner. You just can't go repo a plane on a lien without perfecting it.

Neither can an bailor take his property from the bailee without paying what is owed, that is clear in the PA statute I linked to. The bailee has the right to refuse to deliver or surrender it voluntarily, which was clearly his choice in this case . No different than trying to take your car from a parking garage without paying the ticket. You can't just blast through the barrier, even though it's your car. The garage must raise the gate and allow passage.

If I was the shop I'd try and get what I could while the plane was here. Then if I thought I was in the right I contact a lawyer about theft of services, small claims, lien etc

Unless someone stole the aircraft and delivered it to the shop for improved avionics without the owner's knowledge, there was a contract for bailment, written or not. Not really difficult to prove. If it were me, I would have made clear by text or email the aircraft wasn't to leave my custody until the bill was paid or a bond posted for the disputed amount in the local court of jurisdiction. If the the owner refused the bond, I would keep possession and follow closely the state statutory procedure for notice pursuant to a lien with statutory power of sale, and add a claim for compensatory damages for storage and any other charge allowed by law.

If I were the owner, I would gladly post the bond, because if the shop were committing a fraud, that will become clear in court at the bond hearing as well and could cost the shop big in punitive and compensatory damages and legal fees.The bond hearing would guarantee both sides would show at trial, or settle, because the shop owner isn't getting paid until they prove their claim is valid in court, and if the owner feel he's being defrauded and can prove it, the shop will eat the costs anyway. And in the meantime he can enjoy his new panel etc.

My business is by it's nature bailment. I have been down this road too many times with owners trying to get out of paying a bill. If you let your security interest go down the road, by the time you hire the lawyers to pursue the claim in court, you're spending $5k to collect $10k. Bailment is one of the oldest areas of the law, and well travelled ground.

 

[Zeldman]

So, somebody shoulda blocked the tug with an excavator...

 

[benyflyguy]

As with most things. The devil is in the details. Which we don’t have.
Owner paid 76K for contracted avionics work. That bill was satisfied. But gets handed an oh by the way 18k mechanic add on. Now who knows what kind of contract was signed or what texts when back and forth. The hanger owner up there escalated things to ****attery.
feel bad that people who have nothing to do with this situation think it’s necessary to step in and try to call/ complain/cancel hilariously to the wrong James Gallagher. Even if it’s the right person- it’s still wrong for outsiders to get involved.
im ok with watching from a Distance how it all unfolds though

 

[flyingron]

Neither can an bailor take his property from the bailee without paying what is owed, that is clear in the PA statute I linked to. The bailee has the right to refuse to deliver or surrender it voluntarily, which was clearly his choice in this case .

I don't disagree, but that doesn't look to be the case here. It looks like he was in possession on the plane out on the ramp (public space). The bailee was no longer in possession of it but then decided to block the bailee from proceeding further.

To use your analogy it would be like the parking garage operator came chased me down the road and blocked me from going further.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I don't disagree, but that doesn't look to be the case here. It looks like he was in possession on the plane out on the ramp (public space). The bailee was no longer in possession of it but then decided to block the bailee from proceeding further.

To use your analogy it would be like the parking garage operator came chased me down the road and blocked me from going further.

I missed the public space element. I just saw ramp, and assumed the shop would not have been so stupid as to allow the aircraft off property not under his control.My bad.

But in that case it the owner has exposed himself to possible criminal action. You can't take stuff without paying for it. I would press charges. The shop has the right to keep it, the owner has no right to take it with an outstanding balance.

The correct way for the owner to handle this would be to say "ok, hang on to the airplane" and hot-foot it down to the local court of jurisdiction and file an action for replevin, and let a judge look at the entirety of the circumstances and decide how he can regain possession and enjoyment of his property while the billing dispute is litigated. If the facts supported by evidence are as the OP stated, would bet he would prevail easily.

There's a right way and a wrong way, seems both parties here chose the latter.

Edit: I just re-read the OP. I didn't see public space anywhere, or even ramp for that matter.

 

[Half Fast]

Unless someone stole the aircraft and delivered it to the shop for improved avionics without the owner's knowledge,...

That's not too far off.

IF the story as we have it is correct, the avionics shop delivered it to the mechanics shop. The owner had a contract with the avionics shop, not the mechanics shop. The mechanics shop is said to have performed unauthorized work and billed for it, and it is that shop which is holding the plane. Payment has already been settled with the avionics shop.

The avionics shop might have had a lien, but that's been settled since that shop has been paid. I don't see how the mechanics shop, not a party to the original agreement and not authorized to perform all the work they did, can have any lien against the aircraft owner. Their claim is against the avionics shop, if any.

To carry on the parking garage analogy, suppose the garage had some other business come in and wash and wax your car without you asking for it. Does the wash company then have a lien on your car? Can they block your car in the parking space until you pay?

 

[squincher]

That's not too far off.

IF the story as we have it is correct, the avionics shop delivered it to the mechanics shop. The owner had a contract with the avionics shop, not the mechanics shop. The mechanics shop is said to have performed unauthorized work and billed for it, and it is that shop which is holding the plane. Payment has already been settled with the avionics shop.

The avionics shop might have had a lien, but that's been settled since that shop has been paid. I don't see how the mechanics shop, not a party to the original agreement and not authorized to perform all the work they did, can have any lien against the aircraft owner. Their claim is against the avionics shop, if any.

To carry on the parking garage analogy, suppose the garage had some other business come in and wash and wax your car without you asking for it. Does the wash company then have a lien on your car? Can they block your car in the parking space until you pay?

No, they wouldn't have a case for a lien. The aircraft owner should have immediately been on the phone with the state Attorney General's office consumer protection division. Performing and billing for unauthorized repairs has been a scam since we've had vehicles and mechanics. Without an authorization from the owner, the shop owner has left himself open to criminal and civil liability. If the facts are as reported, I hope the aircraft owner is mad enough to follow through completely and break it off in the shop.