Snider v. Dickinson Elks Building, LLC
2017 ND 31
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Snider (RJ Snider Construction) contracted with Brinkman to perform improvements on property owned by Dickinson Elks Building, LLC (DEB) in Dec. 2011 and recorded a construction lien in Jan. 2013 for unpaid work.
- DEB served a written demand under N.D.C.C. § 35-27-25 in May 2014 instructing Snider to commence suit and record a lis pendens within 30 days; Snider filed suit in June 2014 and recorded a lis pendens in July 2014.
- The district court granted DEB summary judgment, ruling Snider forfeited its lien for failing to comply with the 30-day demand requirement of § 35-27-25.
- Two days after that judgment, Snider recorded a second lien for related work (different amount), then sued to enforce it; DEB moved for summary judgment arguing the prior forfeiture barred any subsequent lien for the same work.
- The district court granted DEB summary judgment again, concluding the statutory forfeiture/deemed-satisfied language extinguished Snider’s lien rights and barred recording another lien for the same work.
- Snider appealed; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, interpreting § 35-27-25 to extinguish the lien in its entirety when the owner’s demand is not timely met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a lien forfeited under N.D.C.C. § 35-27-25 is limited to the recorded lien instrument or extinguishes the underlying statutory lien rights | Snider: forfeiture applies only to the recorded/perfected lien document; the underlying lien (which attaches by operation of law) survives and can be evidenced by recording a new lien | DEB: forfeiture/deemed-satisfied language extinguishes the lien rights for the work; claimant cannot record another lien for the same work after forfeiture | Held for DEB: the statute’s forfeiture/deemed-satisfied language extinguishes the lien (both the legal lien and any subsequent recorded lien for the same work) |
| Whether § 35-27-25’s two time limits (30-day demand and three-year rule) allow a claimant to ignore a 30-day demand and later record additional liens within three years | Snider: the "deemed satisfied" sentence refers only to the three-year rule, so the 30-day demand cannot extinguish broader lien rights allowing additional liens within three years | DEB: allowing that undermines the purpose of the 30-day demand; statute provides an owner the option to shorten the enforcement period to 30 days and failure terminates lien rights | Held for DEB: the 30-day demand provision is effective and, if not complied with, terminates lien rights; both time limits operate and failure under either terminates the lien |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Goughnour, 820 N.W.2d 740 (N.D. 2012) (summary judgment standard and review de novo)
- Comstock Constr., Inc. v. Sheyenne Disposal, Inc., 651 N.W.2d 656 (N.D. 2002) (discussing owner's § 35-27-25 demand shortens enforcement period)
- Sheets v. Prosser, 112 N.W. 72 (N.D. 1907) (interpreting statute: forfeiture means lien ceases to exist)
- Kittleson v. Grynberg Petroleum Co., 876 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles)