Jordan Construction, Inc. v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
408 P.3d 296
Utah2017Background
- Jordan Construction (general contractor) built a house for its employee Scott Bell; Bell later executed a trust deed (mortgage) and defaulted after misusing company funds. Jordan recorded a mechanic’s lien for $126,956.92 and later amended it to $232,976.81 to include unpaid subcontractors.
- Jordan secured partial summary judgment against Bell on counterclaims; the court initially omitted explicitly addressing the mechanic’s lien claim and did not join the trust-deed holder as a defendant.
- The trust-deed holder foreclosed nonjudicially; FNMA purchased the trustee’s deed. Jordan sought a writ of execution and sheriff’s sale; the district court quashed the writ and halted the sale after FNMA objected and was later joined as a third-party defendant.
- FNMA moved for partial summary judgment on several points: it was not bound by the earlier interlocutory judgment against Bell; Jordan’s amended lien was untimely; and prejudgment interest was not available under the 2008 lien statute. The court granted FNMA’s motions (except initially on timeliness), and ultimately held the recoverable amount to the original lien figure, which FNMA stipulated to pay.
- The district court awarded attorney fees to FNMA as the “successful party.” Jordan Construction appealed, challenging the quash, preclusive effect of prior rulings, lien timeliness, availability of prejudgment interest, and the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jordan Construction) | Defendant's Argument (FNMA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did district court err by quashing writ of execution and halting sheriff’s sale? | FNMA waived objections by not filing a hearing request within 14 days; court lacked discretion to revisit issuance. | Court retained discretion under Rule 54(b); writ was procedurally defective because no final judgment existed. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; writ was improperly issued pre-final judgment. |
| 2. Is FNMA bound by interlocutory partial summary judgment entered against Bell (lis pendens / res judicata)? | FNMA, as successor-in-interest and purchaser with notice, is in privity with Bell and bound by the earlier order. | Lis pendens and res judicata bind only to final judgments; interlocutory rulings may be revisited. | Affirmed: FNMA not bound; lis pendens and res judicata require final judgment. |
| 3. Was Jordan’s second amended notice of lien timely? | Newly discovered June 2011 certificate of occupancy and relation-back or equitable tolling should make amendment timely. | Amended notice filed >180 days after October 2008 certificate; admission of October 2008 CO dispositive; relation-back/equitable tolling inapplicable or unpreserved. | Affirmed: amendment untimely; court properly denied withdrawal of admission, equitable tolling unpreserved, relation-back inapplicable to statutory lien deadline. |
| 4. Is prejudgment interest available under the 2008 mechanic’s lien statute? | Prejudgment interest appropriate where loss is certain and calculable; should be available despite statute’s silence. | Mechanic’s liens are statutory creatures; absent express statutory authorization, prejudgment interest is not recoverable. | Affirmed: prejudgment interest unavailable under 2008 statute; omission deemed intentional. |
| 5. Which party was the “successful party” for attorney-fee award? | Recovery of the original lien amount makes Jordan the successful party. | Compare amounts sought vs. recovered and overall litigation success — FNMA prevailed on most motions and substantially reduced Jordan’s recovery. | Affirmed: FNMA was the successful party; district court did not abuse discretion; remand for appellate fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 196 P.3d 588 (Utah 2008) (district court may revisit interlocutory decisions before final judgment)
- Press Publ’g, Ltd. v. Matol Botanical Int’l, Ltd., 37 P.3d 1121 (Utah 2001) (standard for reviewing questions of law)
- Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1998) (withdrawal of admissions governed by prejudice and presentation-of-merits test)
- 2 Ton Plumbing, L.L.C. v. Thorgaard, 345 P.3d 675 (Utah 2015) (mechanic’s lien rights are statutory; courts may not infer recoverable items not in statute)
- Iron Head Constr., Inc. v. Gurney, 207 P.3d 1231 (Utah 2009) (distinguishing mechanic’s lien claims from contract claims re: prejudgment interest)
- A.K. & R. Whipple Plumbing & Heating v. Guy, 94 P.3d 270 (Utah 2004) (trial courts use common sense to determine the “successful party” for fee awards)