AGO 1956 No. 206 - Feb 21 1956
CRIMES, LARCENY, CONTRACTOR FAILING TO PAY FOR LABOR OR MATERIAL.
In a prosecution for larceny by embezzlement involving RCW 9.54.080 it is not necessary, as a requisite to the action, that the materialman file a notice of claim of lien as prescribed in RCW 60.04.020.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
February 21, 1956
Honorable Paul A. Klasen, Jr.
Ephrata, Washington Cite as: AGO 55-57 No. 206
In your letter of February 10, 1956, you have set forth two questions:
1. In the prosecution for larceny by embezzlement involving RCW 9.54.080, concerning a materialman who has furnished materials, is it necessary, as a requisite of the action, that the materialman file the notice as prescribed in RCW 60.04.020?
2. In the same situation, could the action be maintained for materials furnished before the elapse of the five days?
We answer your first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative.
The supreme court of the State of Washington handled this factual situation in State v. Williams, 141 Wash. 148, in which the court made the following statement:
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
"* * * It was not necessary that a lien be filed for any such services, but only necessary that services were rendered for which a lien could be filed."
Thus, the court definitely separated the filing requirement for civil recovery from the criminal action.
We hope that the foregoing information will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
CLYDE A. BARNARD
Assistant Attorney General