254 P.3d 1246
Idaho2011Background
- PCM and the Bells entered a cost-plus contract to build a log home; Bells were to pay invoices within ten days and object in writing within five days of invoicing.
- Neubert, PCM supervisor, billed at $60/hour during supervisory periods but actual wage was $25/hour; Bells were charged $37.39/hour when non-supervisory.
- Bells initially paid some invoices but disputed portions and terminated PCM before completion; PCM recorded a lien for $113,312.94.
- District court held an expedited lien hearing, excluding architect and plumber testimony on construction defects, limiting evidence to lien amount reasonableness.
- Court found PCM prevailed on the lien and awarded damages, then granted summary judgment dismissing Bells’ counterclaims for lack of timely NORA notice.
- On appeal, Bells challenged evidentiary ruling, lien amount, attorney fees, and the NORA summary judgment; the supreme court vacated the ruling on evidence and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err in excluding defect-related testimony? | Bells relied on defects to defense lien amount. | Evidence relates to counterclaims, not lien; equitable proceeding limits. | Yes; exclusion incorrect; remand for new lien trial. |
| Was PCM entitled to enforce the lien given substantial performance questions? | Lien enforceable if substantial performance (Nelson rule). | Defects may offset or negate lien; relevant to performance. | Lien validity requires substantial performance; remand to determine. |
| Did the district court properly grant summary judgment on the Bells’ counterclaims under NORA? | NORA failure warrants dismissal; deadlines rigid. | Counterclaims barred, so no defense impact on lien. | affirmed; dismissal without prejudice, but remand on lien grounds. |
| Should attorney fees and costs awarded to PCM be upheld? | As lien claimant, PCM entitled to fees if lien enforced. | Fees require lien outcome; pending remand affects award. | Vacated; fees to be reconsidered on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Hazel, 89 Idaho 480, 406 P.2d 138 (Idaho 1965) (substantial performance concept in lien context; attachment vs recovery distinct)
- Ervin Construction Co. v. Van Orden, 125 Idaho 695, 874 P.2d 506 (Idaho 1993) (components may be defective without destroying overall substantial performance)