Dahl v. Christensen
2020 UT App 151
| Utah Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Attorney Steve S. Christensen represented Kim Dahl in multiple matters (divorce, trust, legal malpractice, and related appeals) and recorded a $2 million lien against Ms. Dahl’s interest in a home she co‑owned with C. Robert Dahl to secure unpaid fees.
- Ms. Dahl signed multiple retainer agreements: divorce retainers and a malpractice retainer; the divorce retainers purported to grant Christensen a proprietary interest in the property.
- The Utah Supreme Court (Dahl v. Dahl) later held the divorce retainers were prohibited under the Rules of Professional Conduct because they granted a proprietary interest in the subject matter of litigation and were not authorized by the attorney‑lien statute.
- Robert Dahl sued to nullify the recorded lien; the district court concluded the lien was wrongful (because much of it reflected divorce fees the Supreme Court had found unlawful) and awarded statutory damages and fees, finding Christensen knew the lien was wrongful.
- Christensen appealed, arguing the lien was authorized at least in part by the malpractice retainer Ms. Dahl signed, and thus did not meet the Wrongful Lien Act’s definition of a “wrongful lien.”
- The Court of Appeals reversed: because a lien authorized by a document signed by the property owner falls outside the Act’s definition of a wrongful lien, the lien here (authorized at least in part by the malpractice retainer) was not wrongful as a matter of law; the court vacated the judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Dahl's Argument | Christensen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recorded $2M lien was a “wrongful lien” under the Wrongful Lien Act | The lien was wrongful because a substantial portion arose from divorce fees the Utah Supreme Court had declared unlawful | The lien was not wrongful because it was authorized at least in part by the malpractice retainer signed by Ms. Dahl (excludes it under § 38‑9‑102(12)(c)) | Reversed: lien not wrongful as a matter of law because it was authorized in part by a document signed by the owner; vacated judgment |
| Whether Christensen is liable for statutory treble damages and fees because he knew or should have known the lien was wrongful | District court found Christensen knew the lien was wrongful when recorded | Christensen argued he could not have known it was wrongful because it was authorized by Ms. Dahl’s signed malpractice retainer | Not reached on appeal (court reversed wrongful‑lien finding and vacated award) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dahl v. Dahl, 2015 UT 79, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah Supreme Court invalidating divorce retainers that granted proprietary interest in subject property)
- Hutter v. Dig‑It, Inc., 2009 UT 69, 219 P.3d 918 (Wrongful Lien Act intended to reach common‑law retaliatory liens; statutory or consensual liens excluded)
- Anderson v. Wilshire Invs., LLC, 2005 UT 59, 123 P.3d 393 (definition of wrongful lien is narrow)
- Lindstrom v. Custom Floor Covering Inc., 2017 UT App 141, 402 P.3d 171 (consensual/contractual liens excluded from wrongful lien definition under § 38‑9‑102(12)(c))
- Skypark Airport Ass’n v. Jensen, 2013 UT App 229, 311 P.3d 575 (whether lien amount is excessive affects enforceability, not wrongfulness)
- Bay Harbor Farm, LC v. Sumsion, 2014 UT App 133, 329 P.3d 46 (good‑faith plausible statutory basis shields lien from wrongful‑lien nullification)
- Pratt v. Pugh, 2010 UT App 219, 238 P.3d 1073 (liens authorized by owner’s document are not wrongful even if ultimately unenforceable)