All Clean, Inc. v. Timberline Properties
264 P.3d 244
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Timberline buildings flooded Jan 21–24, 2008; All Clean performed flood-mitigation services (water extraction, padding, drying, cleaning, deodorizing, mold prevention).
- Work did not involve structural changes or removal/installation of carpeting; services aimed at restoring premises to preloss condition.
- All Clean invoiced $5,074.45; insurer Travelers approved $4,794.07 interposed to Timberline; DeHart paid All Clean $3,200, believing it fair for an extra day.
- All Clean filed a Notice of Mechanics' Lien on Jul 18, 2008; later sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure of the lien, among other claims.
- Trial court awarded unjust enrichment $1,519.07 and rejected All Clean’s mechanics’ lien and related attorney-fees claims; All Clean accepted judgment on the unjust enrichment claim.
- Timberline cross-appealed seeking attorney fees under the mechanics’ lien statute for defending against the lien; court affirmed overall decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the flood-mitigation services lienable under the mechanics' lien statute? | All Clean: work is an 'improvement' or lienable service under the statute. | Timberline: mitigation work is not lienable because it lacks durable, affixed improvement to property. | No; mitigation work is not lienable; attorney-fee relief denied. |
| Did All Clean waive appeal by accepting payment of the principal judgment? | All Clean: the appeal concerns separate, distinct attorney-fee relief from the unjust enrichment judgment. | Timberline: payment waiver rule applies when a judgment is satisfied for the entire amount. | No waiver; the relief sought was separate and distinct from the principal judgment. |
| Is All Clean entitled to attorney fees under the mechanics' lien statute if lienable? | All Clean would recover reasonable fees if lienable. | Timberline: no lienable work, so no fees under the mechanics' lien statute. | Not applicable; lien was not established, so fees denied. |
| Is Timberline's cross-appeal for attorney fees preserved for appeal? | Timberline seeks fees as the successful defense. | Timberline did not preserve the issue in the trial court. | Not preserved for appeal; issue not addressed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frehner v. Morton, 424 P.2d 446 (Utah 1967) (landscaping and other improvements contemplated by statute)
- Daniels v. Deseret Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 771 P.2d 1100 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (repairs not lienable if not affixed or enduring)
- Calder Brothers Co. v. Anderson, 652 P.2d 922 (Utah 1982) (ordinary maintenance not lienable; no retroactive lien date)
- First of Denver Mortgage Investors v. C.N. Zundel & Associates., 600 P.2d 521 (Utah 1979) (enhancement must be an enduring improvement, not mere value increase)
- Trees v. Lewis, 738 P.2d 612 (Utah 1987) (separate and distinct claim exception to waiver rule)
- Jensen v. Eddy, 514 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1973) (waiver rule for voluntary payments; exception for separate claims)
- John Holmes Constr. v. R.A. McKell Excavating, Inc., 2005 UT 83 (Utah) (statutory interpretation of mechanics' liens; issue preserved on appeal)
- Robertson's Marine, Inc. v. 14 Solutions, Inc., 2010 UT App 9 (Utah) (fees on appeal when trial court considered them; preservation important)
- Advanced Restoration, LLC v. Priskos, 2005 UT App 505 (Utah) (extensive repairs may be lienable; context-dependent)
- In re E.D., 876 P.2d 397 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (preservation principle for appellate issues)