Henry Hill Oil Services v. Tufto, 987 N.W.2d 314

Landowners granted RWS Holdings pipeline and reservoir easements (2017–2018); temporary easements expired on pipeline completion and reservoir easement had a 20‑year/‘until removed’ term.
RWS Holdings hired Regional Water Service, which subcontracted Henry Hill Oil to construct water reservoirs and related pipeline work on the easement areas; Henry Hill worked June–October 2018.
Henry Hill recorded construction liens against the Landowners’ parcels after nonpayment, then sued Regional Water Service for breach and sued the Landowners to foreclose the liens.
The district court granted Henry Hill summary judgment, foreclosed liens against the Landowners’ entire fee interests, and awarded Henry Hill costs and attorney’s fees and damages against Regional Water Service.
On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court held Henry Hill was a subcontractor of the easement owner (RWS Holdings), not the landowners, and that any valid liens attach only to RWS’s easement interests—not the Landowners’ fee simple interests.
The Court also held the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Henry Hill under N.D.C.C. § 35‑27‑24.1 and remanded for determination of the Landowners’ recoverable costs and fees for successfully contesting the liens.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Landowners are “owners” under the construction‑lien statute such that Henry Hill’s lien attaches to their fee simple interests	Henry Hill: landowners retained legal title and therefore are "owners" who authorized work; liens attach to entire parcels	Landowners: easements vested RWS with the right to the improvements; Henry Hill contracted with RWS, not the Landowners, so liens attach only to easement interests	Court: Landowners are not "owners" for purposes of Henry Hill’s contract; Henry Hill was a subcontractor to RWS and any lien (if valid) covers only RWS’s easement interests, not the Landowners’ fee simple interests; reversed foreclosure against fee interest
Whether Henry Hill (contractor) was entitled to recover costs and attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 35‑27‑24.1	Henry Hill: statute is broad/ambiguous and fees can be awarded to prevailing party enforcing a lien	Landowners: statute awards fees only to an owner who successfully contests a lien; Henry Hill is not an “owner” and did not ‘‘contest’’ its lien	Court: § 35‑27‑24.1 plainly awards fees to an owner who successfully contests a lien; district court erred in awarding fees to Henry Hill; reversed and remanded to award Landowners’ reasonable costs and fees for contesting the lien

Pennington v. Continental Res., Inc., 932 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 2019) (summary judgment standard)
Laufer v. Doe, 946 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2020) (statutory interpretation: plain‑meaning and harmonization rules)
Horob v. Zavanna, LLC, 883 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 2016) (summary judgment standard authority cited)
Nesdahl Surveying & Eng’g, P.C. v. Ackerland Corp., 507 N.W.2d 686 (N.D. 1993) (construction lien statutes are remedial and construed liberally)
Northern Excavating Co. v. Sisters of Mary of the Presentation Long Term Care, 815 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 2012) (limits recovery under § 35‑27‑24.1 to costs and fees reasonably expended contesting the lien)