Lane Myers Construction, LLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
287 P.3d 479
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Lane Myers sued to foreclose mechanics’ liens on Oakley and Mountain homes and named Countrywide, National City Bank, and others as defendants.
- Oakley loan from Countrywide; Mountain loan from National City; liens filed to secure construction work by Lane Myers.
- Lane Myers released the Oakley lien in 2008 after partial payment but amended its complaint a year later, keeping the Countrywide claim alive.
- National City moved for summary judgment on Mountain lien; draw requests contained waivers-like language; trial court granted summary judgment and awarded National City attorney fees.
- Countrywide moved for summary judgment on its fees under §38-1-18, arguing it was the successful party; Lane Myers argued Countrywide was not successful on the merits.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Countrywide’s attorney-fee award, reversed the grant of summary judgment for National City, and remanded for further proceedings; the fee issue for National City became moot on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees under §38-1-18 awarded to Countrywide | Lane Myers: Countrywide not successful; not entitled to fees | Countrywide: successful defense on amended claim warranted fee | Yes; Countrywide entitled to fees for defending amended claim and obtaining dismissal |
| Draw requests constitute valid lien waivers/releases | Lane Myers: draw language not in substantially the form; no waiver | National City: draws substantially comply | No; draw requests lacked four required components; not enforceable waivers/releases |
| Effect of amended complaint after lien release | Lane Myers maintained merits-based claim against Countrywide | Countrywide incurred fees defending renewed claim | Countrywide entitled to fees incurred defending amended claim; reversal on waiver issue remains distinct |
| Mootness of cross-appeal regarding fees | N/A | National City’s cross-appeal moot after remand decision | Moot; remand allows potential future fee proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Uhrhahn Constr. & Design, Inc. v. Hopkins, 179 P.3d 808 (2008 UT App) (successful party for mechanics’ lien fees)
- One Lot of Personal Property, 90 P.3d 639 (Utah 2004) (voluntary dismissal does not negate fee shifting)
- Sill v. Hart, 162 P.3d 1099 (Utah 2007) (lien act protective purpose; broad construction)
- Archuleta v. St. Mark’s Hosp., 238 P.3d 1044 (Utah 2010) (read statutes in harmony; legislative framework)
- Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 164 P.3d 384 (Utah 2007) (interpret form vs. substantially the form provided)
- Olsen v. Chase, 270 P.3d 538 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (section 38‑1‑39 forms; waiver requirements)