266 P.3d 881
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- KB Seattle leased mall space for a coffee kiosk and was allowed tenant improvements.
- KB Franchisors hired Blue Diamond to manage construction of the kiosk.
- Blue Diamond recorded an October 2008 lien for $77,615.62 for unpaid work.
- Blue Diamond sued KB Seattle, KB Franchisors, guarantors, and WEA Southcenter to foreclose the lien.
- The trial court granted summary judgment: (i) Blue Diamond failed to register as a contractor, and (ii) there were no lien rights under Washington law; fees were awarded to WEA Southcenter.
- The court held construction management services are not lienable under RCW 60.04.021 because they do not constitute labor or professional services and were not performed at the site.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether construction management is lienable under RCW 60.04.021 | Blue Diamond contends the services fall within the lien statute. | West centers argues construction management is not labor or professional service and not listed. | No; construction management is not lienable under RCW 60.04.021. |
| Whether Blue Diamond can be considered a contractor and must register | Blue Diamond asserts contractor status triggers registration requirements. | Even if not lienable, registration issues could bar the action. | Unnecessary to decide registration; lien rights failed on merits. |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to WEA Southcenter | Blue Diamond challenges fee entitlement. | WEA Southcenter prevailed and is entitled to fees under RCW 60.04.181(3). | Affirmed; prevailing party may recover attorney fees under RCW 60.04.181(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Singh, 120 Wn. App. 1 (2003) (construction management not lienable absent site labor showing)
- Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 119 Wn.2d 640 (1992) (labor definition and lien-related standards)
- Blair v. Wash. State Univ., 108 Wn.2d 558 (1987) (statutory interpretation and expressio unius rules)
- Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 169 Wn.2d 516 (2010) (fee shifting and frivolous lien considerations)
- Coronado v. Orona, 137 Wn. App. 308 (2007) (application of lien and contract provisions)