TERRA-WEST, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. IDAHO MUTUAL TRUST, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant, and Mike Urwin Enterprises, Inc., an Idaho corporation; Red Cliff Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation; Alloway Electric Co., Inc., an Idaho corporation; Electric Wholesale Supply Co., Inc., an Idaho corporation; Kristen R. Thompson, an individual; All Persons in Possession or Claiming any Right to Possession, Defendants.
No. 36523.
Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, August 2010 Term.
Dec. 23, 2010.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 2011.
247 P.3d 620
857, 920 P.2d 67, 73 (1996)). In exercising its discretion, however, the district court must identify “which party to an action is a prevailing party.”
VI. CONCLUSION
Smith is not entitled to any attorney fees in this petition for review of an administrative decision. The decision of the district court is affirmed.
Chief Justice EISMANN, Justices BURDICK, J. JONES and HORTON concur.
Trout Jones Gledhill Fuhrman Gourley, PA, Boise, for respondent. Daniel L. Glynn argued.
J. JONES, Justice.
Idaho Mutual Trust, LLC, appeals the order of the district court granting the motion of Terra-West, Inc., for leave to file an amended complaint. We affirm.
I. Background
In 2006, Red Cliff Development, Inc., contracted with Terra-West, Inc., to provide excavation and irrigation related labor and materials for the development of a 40-acre subdivision in Caldwell. After Terra-West commenced work on the property, Red Cliff entered into an agreement with Mike Urwin Enterprises, Inc., wherein Urwin purchased the property and assumed all obligations under Red Cliff‘s contract with Terra-West. Terra-West began work in August of 2006 and performed under the contract until November 30, 2007, at which point work was stalled until Urwin could procure governmental approval for certain irrigation projects.
On December 6, 2007, Terra-West recorded a mechanic‘s lien against the property (the first lien) because it had not been fully compensated for its work to date under the agreement with Urwin. Idaho Mutual Trust, LLC, had previously obtained an interest in the subject property evidenced by a deed of trust dated February 6, 2007. Sometime after Terra-West filed the first lien, Urwin received governmental approval to complete the work on the subdivision, and Terra-West completed the work on May 25, 2008. Because Terra-West still had not been fully paid under the agreement, on May 30, 2008, it filed an action to foreclose on the first lien, naming Idaho Mutual as a party because of its interest in the property. Idaho Mutual responded by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure
In the meantime, on August 12, 2008, Terra-West recorded a second mechanic‘s lien against the property (the second lien),2 encompassing all the work Terra-West had performed up to the date of completion.3
II. Issues on Appeal
- Whether a motion for leave to amend a complaint “commences proceedings” to enforce a mechanic‘s lien pursuant to
Idaho Code section 45-510 . - Whether either party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
III. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
The I.R.C.P. provide that leave of court to amend a pleading shall be freely given when justice so requires.
B. Timeliness
Idaho Mutual‘s interlocutory appeal is predicated upon the notion that Terra-West‘s second lien is unenforceable because of Terra-West‘s failure to comply with the time requirements of
We affirm the order of the district court granting Terra-West‘s motion for leave to amend the complaint, although not for the reason articulated by the district court. It is well-settled that “[w]here an order of a lower court is correct, but based on an erroneous theory, the order will be affirmed upon the correct theory.” Andre v. Morrow, 106 Idaho 455, 459, 680 P.2d 1355, 1359 (1984). The district court granted Terra-West‘s motion for leave to amend on the ground that the second claim of lien arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the first claim of lien and, thus, the amendment related back to the date the original complaint was filed pursuant to
Idaho‘s mechanic‘s lien statute does not define when proceedings are commenced to enforce a lien, nor is there any case law in Idaho dealing with whether filing a motion to amend a complaint commences proceedings pursuant to the statute. However, Corpus Juris Secundum, summarizing relevant state and federal case law on the issue, states that “when a motion to amend a complaint and a proposed amended complaint are filed prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the motion to amend stands in place of the actual amended complaint while the motion is under review by the trial court, and the fact that an order granting the motion to amend is entered after expiration of the statute of limitations does not make the amended complaint untimely.” 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 329. See, also, Buller Trucking Co. v. Owner Operator Independent Driver Risk Retention Group, Inc., 461 F.Supp.2d 768, 776–77 (S.D.Ill.2006) (“the settled rule in both federal and state court is that a complaint is deemed filed as of the time it is submitted to a court together with a request for leave to file the amended pleading.“).
Idaho Mutual argues that in determining when proceedings are commenced under
The problem with Idaho Mutual‘s argument is that it presupposes
The plaintiff has no way of controlling or even predicting the time at which any permission to amend will be granted, and thus no ability to control the date on which the amended complaint itself may be filed. It may take only a matter of days before the motion is allowed and the complaint can be filed, but it may be a matter of weeks, or even months, depending on a host of factors, all of which are outside the plaintiff‘s control.6 If the [time limitations] cannot be satisfied until the later filing of the amended complaint after the motion to amend has been allowed, the [limitation] period will effectively be shortened by some unpredictable amount of time, as a plaintiff would have to file the motion to amend some considerable period in advance of the expiration of the [limitation] period and simply hope that the court‘s ruling would be sufficiently prompt. It is only that first step, the filing of the motion, that the plaintiff can control. Thus, the filing of the motion is comparable to the original filing of the complaint, both in the sense that each is the first step that a plaintiff takes and the first document that a plaintiff files with the court concerning the action, and in the sense that both the filing of the original complaint and the filing of the motion to amend are steps that remain unilaterally in the plaintiff‘s control.
Nett v. Bellucci, 437 Mass. 630, 774 N.E.2d 130, 136 (2002). In sum, there is a substantial difference between the procedure for filing an original complaint under
Idaho Mutual argues that the better rule is to require the plaintiff to initiate a separate foreclosure action and consolidate the cases in order to satisfy the timeliness requirements of
Terra-West could have timely filed a separate action to foreclose the [s]econd [l]ien. It also could have moved to consolidate that separate action with this one. That approach would have avoided the expiration of the [s]econd [l]ien while Terra-West‘s motion to amend was pending. Instead, Terra-West chose to follow [a] needlessly risky path....
The approach advocated by Idaho Mutual is contrary to the principles of judicial economy and practicality. Requiring a plaintiff to file a separate action, followed by a motion to consolidate, in order to meet the statutory time requirement, would create needless confusion and duplication in the perfection of a mechanic‘s lien. It is this Court‘s responsibility to interpret statutes, and in doing so, we must construe statutes so as to give effect to the legislative intent. State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 575, 199 P.3d 123, 150 (2008). Because Idaho‘s mechanic‘s lien statute is constitutionally mandated (
“[T]he Legislature has recognized the courts’ inherent power in this regard by enactment of [Idaho Code] section 1-1622 [which] provides:
When jurisdiction is, by this code, or by any other statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction if the course of proceedings be not specially pointed out by this code, or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.”
Id. at 803, 215 P.3d at 523. In other words, because the Legislature is silent on this issue, it is this Court‘s responsibility to apply a meaning of “commence proceedings” that is consistent with the spirit and policy of Idaho‘s mechanic‘s lien statute. Under the approach urged by Idaho Mutual, a plaintiff would inevitably be forced to incur additional litigation costs associated with filing a separate action and scarce judicial resources would be wasted by adding an unnecessary case to the court‘s calendar.
Moreover, the approach suggested by Idaho Mutual has been rejected by federal courts applying analogous rules of federal procedure. This Court has previously recognized that federal case law provides persuasive authority when interpreting rules under the I.R.C.P. that are substantially similar to rules under the F.R.C.P. Black v. Ameritel Inns, Inc., 139 Idaho 511, 515, 81 P.3d 416, 420 (2003); see also Chacon v. Sperry Corp., 111 Idaho 270, 275, 723 P.2d 814, 819 (1986) (noting that whenever possible, the Court should “interpret[] our rules of civil procedure in conformance with the interpretation placed upon the same rules by the federal courts.“).7 The text of
An analysis of federal cases dealing with the interplay between
In this case, because Idaho Mutual was not dismissed from the case following the invalidation of the first lien, the motion for leave to file the amended complaint gave notice to Idaho Mutual within the six-month jurisdictional time limit that Terra-West was seeking to foreclose the second lien. Terra-West served Idaho Mutual with the motion pursuant to
Idaho Mutual argues that many of the cases cited above are distinguishable because they involve statutes of limitations, whereas this case deals with a strict jurisdictional bar. More specifically, Idaho Mutual argues that
Idaho Mutual also points to this Court‘s decision in Griggs v. Nash, 116 Idaho 228, 775 P.2d 120 (1989), in support of the proposition that Idaho has already decided that an action added by amended complaint is not commenced until the amended complaint itself is filed with the court. In that case, two defendants moved for leave of court to file a third-party complaint against an attorney for legal malpractice. Id. at 234, 775 P.2d at 126. The motion for leave was made within the two-year statute of limitations, but the district court did not rule on the motion until eight months later, after the limitations period had expired. Id. Citing
However, our decision in Griggs is distinguishable from the case at bar because it concerned the timeliness of a third-party complaint, which is categorically different than a motion to amend to add a new claim against a party who is already part of the action. In the context of a third-party complaint, there may be good reason to prefer the more cumbersome method of requiring the filing of an independent action against the third party to commence the proceedings.
Finally, Idaho Mutual argues that permitting Terra-West to foreclose the second lien, which incorporates all the work originally claimed under the first lien, as well as the additional work completed after the filing of the first lien, is tantamount to permitting Terra-West to revive an invalid lien. However, Terra-West is not prohibited from foreclosing the second lien, even though it encompasses work originally claimed under the first invalid lien. In White v. Constitution Mining & Mill Co., we held that a mechanic‘s lien, “if any exists at all, relates back to the date of the commencement of the work or improvement or the commencement to furnish the material.”8 56 Idaho 403, 420, 55 P.2d 152, 160 (1936). In that case, several employees filed a mechanic‘s lien against the property of their employer, the mining company, for unpaid salaries pursuant to an employment contract. Id. at 407, 55 P.2d at 153-54. Prior to the employees actually filing the lien, a judgment creditor of the mining company levied an attachment on the mining company‘s property. Id. at 407, 55 P.2d at 153. The employees subsequently brought a suit to foreclose on the lien, and the court entered a judgment in their favor for the amounts claimed. Id. at 408, 55 P.2d at 154. However, the court also found that the portion of the judgment covering wages earned prior to the attachment by the judgment creditor was superior to that of the judgment creditor‘s claim, but the portion covering work performed after the attachment was inferior to the judgment creditor‘s claim. Id. We reversed the trial court‘s decision, finding that the employees’ liens were not affected by the judgment creditor‘s attachment and the whole amount claimed by the employees was superior. Id. at 425, 55 P.2d at 162. Central to our analysis was the fact that all of the work claimed under the mechanic‘s lien was completed pursuant to one continuous employment contract, and therefore, the lien attached at the time the work began and encompassed all work subsequently done under the contract. Id.
Pursuant to this analysis, so long as a lien is filed within ninety days after the completion of the labor or services, the lien may encompass the entirety of the work performed under a single contract. The fact that a lien claimant previously attempted, but failed, to file a lien under the same contract does not prohibit that same party from filing and foreclosing a second lien. In other words, the lien attaches at the time that work is commenced under a contract, and if all work is completed pursuant to that same contract, a lien claimant may file a mechanic‘s lien encompassing all such work so long as the statutory guidelines are fulfilled. Thus, in this case, the existence of the first invalid lien is wholly irrelevant, other than to provide the forum upon which Terra-West could file a motion to amend the original complaint. All of the work that Terra-West claimed when filing both the first lien and the second lien was done pursuant to one contract. Consequently, Terra-West is not pro-hibited
Therefore, we conclude that Terra-West‘s motion for leave to amend the complaint commenced proceedings within the statutory time period pursuant to
C. Attorney Fees
Both parties argue that they are entitled to attorney fees under
IV. Conclusion
Therefore, we conclude that the filing of the motion for leave to amend the complaint commenced proceedings within the statutory time period and we therefore affirm the order of the district court granting leave to file the amended complaint. Costs to Terra-West.
Justices BURDICK and HORTON concur.
Chief Justice EISMANN, dissenting.
In Griggs v. Nash, 116 Idaho 228, 775 P.2d 120 (1989), two defendants in a lawsuit filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint on January 29, 1987. Under the facts in the record, the two-year statute of limitations would run on their third-party claim on September 9, 1987. Id. at 234, 775 P.2d at 126. The trial court signed an order granting the motion on September 8, 1987, but the defendants did not file their third-party complaint until September 23, 1987, after the statute of limitations had run. This Court held that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, reasoning as follows:
On January 29, 1987, EMSI and Van Gelder filed a motion pursuant to
I.R.C.P. 14(a) for leave to file a third-party complaint against Trout. A copy of the third-party complaint was attached to the motion. On September 8, 1987, the trial court signed an order granting EMSI and VanGelder leave to file their third-party complaint. The order was filed on September 10, 1987. The third-party complaint was filed on September 23, 1987. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 3(a) , an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint. Therefore, the action contained in the third-party complaint was not commenced until September 23, 1987. This was at least 14 days after the two-year statute of limitations had run. Therefore, we affirm the trial court‘s ruling that the third-party complaint was barred byI.C. § 5-219(4) .
Id. (emphasis added).
There is no material difference in the wording of the relevant statute in Griggs and the wording of the mechanic‘s lien statute in this case. In Griggs, the action had to be “commenced within the periods prescribed in this chapter after the cause of action shall have accrued.”
The majority seeks to distinguish Griggs and this case by arguing that the third party in Griggs had no notice of the pending litigation while in this case Idaho Mutual had notice that Terra-West at least intended to foreclose its first lien. Our prior cases do not support a distinction based upon that rationale.
In Willes v. Palmer, 78 Idaho 104, 298 P.2d 972 (1956), a contractor filed a claim of lien to secure the unpaid balance owing him for work done on the residence of a married couple. The wife “was present during most of the time the work was being done and directed that considerable of the additions be included.” Id. at 107, 298 P.2d at 973. The contractor later timely filed an action to foreclose the lien, but named only the husband as a defendant. At the commencement of the trial, the contractor was permitted by the trial court to amend his complaint by adding the wife as a defendant. She obviously knew of the proceedings because she was personally present at the trial, joined in the answer filed by her husband, and elected to proceed with the trial rather than have a continuance to prepare. Id. She and her husband appealed a judgment in favor of the contractor and argued that the lien could not be foreclosed because she was made a party after the statutory duration period of the lien had expired. This Court agreed, holding, “The action not having been brought against [the wife] within the six month period, the lien as to her interest in the property was wholly lost.” Id. at 108, 298 P.2d at 974. In addition, we held “that the half interest of the husband could not be severed from that of the wife by foreclosure and sale to satisfy the mechanic‘s lien, and that ... the right to foreclose as to the husband‘s interest must also be denied.” Id. at 109, 298 P.2d at 975. This Court did not inquire as to when the wife learned of the foreclosure proceedings.
In Boise Payette Lumber Co. v. Weaver, 40 Idaho 516, 234 P. 150 (1925), the lumber company, the plumbing and heating contractor, and the builder were all unpaid after completion of a home. The contractor and builder filed mechanic‘s liens, but the lumber company instead took a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the home. The lumber company filed an action to foreclose its mortgage and made the lien claimants defendants. They filed answers and cross-claims upon their respective liens, but the contractor did not file a cross-complaint against the landowner to foreclose his mechanic‘s lien until more than six months after he had filed his claim of lien. Prior to the expiration of that six-month period, he and the landowner had filed a written stipulation that the time for foreclosing his lien could be extended for six months. This Court held that the contractor had lost his lien. We stated, “The time within which an action to enforce a lien can be commenced after the
The majority also contends that because this is remedial legislation, we need not follow the statute as written. That is inconsistent with the above cases and is inconsistent with the nature of the mechanic‘s lien. The statute clearly states that the lien expires unless a pleading to foreclose the lien is filed within the statutory period.
In Western Loan & Building Co. v. Gem State Lumber Co., 32 Idaho 497, 185 P. 554 (1919), the landowner granted a mortgage covering a city lot, and the mortgage was duly recorded. About five months later, a supplier who had furnished construction materials used in constructing a building on the lot recorded a claim of lien, and the supplier later timely commenced an action against the landowner to foreclose the lien. The supplier did not name the mortgagee as a defendant in that action. After the time for foreclosing the lien had expired, the mortgagee filed an action to foreclose its mortgage. The supplier answered and filed a cross claim to foreclose its lien. This Court held, “As against the mortgage lien, the lien for material furnished, if any existed, is lost, because the action to foreclose the same was not commenced within the time limited by the statute.” Id. at 500-01, 185 P. at 555 (emphases added). This Court went on to explain, “The limitation prescribed by statute of the time within which an action must be brought in a proper court for the foreclosure of a mechanic‘s lien is not the ordinary statute of limitation, which is waived, if not pleaded.” Id. at 501, 185 P. at 555 (emphasis added). Rather, “‘The time within which the suit must be brought operates as a limitation of the liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone. It is a condition attached to the right to sue at all.’ ” Id. (quoting from The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 214, 7 S.Ct. 140, 147, 30 L.Ed. 358, 362 (1886)) (emphasis added).
In the similar case of Palmer v. Bradford, 86 Idaho 395, 388 P.2d 96 (1964), mortgagees brought an action to foreclose their mortgage, and they named as a defendant the supplier who had filed a claim of lien against the property but had not commenced an action to foreclose its materialman‘s lien. During the succeeding two and one-half years after the claim of lien had been filed, the landowner had made six, semiannual payments of $1.00 each to the supplier. The supplier believed that those payments repeatedly extended the time within which to foreclose its lien pursuant to that portion of
The statute creates and limits the duration of the lien. The statute also gives jurisdiction to the court to foreclose or enforce a lien on certain conditions,—the filing of a claim of lien, and the commencement of the action within the time specified after such claim is filed. If these things are not done no jurisdiction exists in the court to enforce the lien. When the limit fixed by statute for duration of the lien is past, no lien exists, any more than if it had never been created.
Id. at 401, 388 P.2d at 99 (emphasis added). We did not broadly construe section 45-506 to permit repeated extensions of the time within which to foreclose the lien.
We have strictly followed the statutory requirement that the lien claimant must timely commence proceedings by filing a pleading to foreclose the lien within the statutory time period. The statute is clear and
Justice W. JONES concurs.