When must mechanics' lien claimants prove notice compliance for attorney fees? J.V. Hatch Construction v. Kampros Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical timing issue in mechanics’ lien foreclosure actions in J.V. Hatch Construction v. Kampros. The case clarifies when a prevailing lien claimant must prove compliance with notice requirements to recover attorney fees under Utah Code section 38-1-18.

Background and Facts

Hatch Construction entered into a construction contract with Kampros, who terminated the contractor after work commenced. Hatch filed a mechanics’ lien and subsequently brought a foreclosure action. After a four-day trial, the court awarded Hatch $8,500 plus attorney fees. However, Kampros moved for reconsideration, arguing that Hatch failed to prove it mailed the required notice of lien under Utah Code section 38-1-7(3), which is a prerequisite for attorney fee recovery. The trial court reversed its initial ruling and denied attorney fees.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two fundamental questions: First, when must a lien claimant prove compliance with the mailing requirement for notice of lien to recover attorney fees? Second, is proof of mailing part of the claimant’s prima facie case or an affirmative defense that defendants must raise?

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Drawing on Meadowbrook, LLC v. Flower, the court held that prevailing parties can establish attorney fee entitlement during the entire “trial phase“—from trial through entry of final judgment. The court reasoned that requiring proof of notice compliance during the main trial would waste judicial resources since parties don’t know who will prevail until after the merits determination. The court also held that proof of mailing is not part of the lien claimant’s prima facie case for attorney fees. Instead, defendants bear the burden of raising non-compliance as a defense.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important flexibility for mechanics’ lien practitioners. Attorneys need not present notice compliance evidence during the main trial but should be prepared to address it post-trial if challenged. The ruling also clarifies that the statutory language “failure to deliver or mail” creates a defense for property owners rather than an element of the claimant’s case. This interpretation aligns with the mechanics’ lien statute’s protective purpose while maintaining compliance requirements.