Are property owners entitled to attorney fees when defending against invalid mechanics' liens? Reeve & Associates, Inc. v. Tanner Explained

In Reeve & Associates, Inc. v. Tanner, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified that property owners who successfully defend against invalid mechanics’ liens are entitled to attorney fees under Utah’s mechanics’ lien statutes, regardless of whether the liens were filed in good faith.

Background and Facts

The Hansens owned property in Weber County that they contracted to sell to a developer for a residential subdivision. The developer hired Reeve & Associates to perform preparatory work including soil testing, subdivision planning, and county permitting. When the developer’s financing fell through and the land sale collapsed, Reeve & Associates filed two mechanics’ liens totaling over $71,000 against the Hansens’ property, seeking payment for work performed.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues included whether the mechanics’ liens were valid when the contractor worked only for the developer (not the property owners), whether the property owners were entitled to attorney fees under Utah Code section 38-1-18, and whether the liens constituted abusive lien practices under Utah Code section 38-1-25.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found that the district court correctly invalidated the liens because the developer was not the landowners’ agent and the landowners had not authorized the contractor’s work. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of attorney fees, holding that Utah Code section 38-1-18 uses mandatory language (“shall be entitled”) and applies to “any action brought to enforce any lien,” including unsuccessful lien enforcement actions. The statute’s purpose includes both enabling rightful lienors to recover costs and “discouraging abuse of the lien process by creating a strong disincentive for a would-be litigant to wrongly inflict a mechanic’s lien.”

Practice Implications

This decision confirms that Utah’s Attorney Fee Statute operates as a two-way street—successful lienors can recover fees, but property owners who defeat invalid liens are also entitled to fee awards. The court emphasized that the statute’s language does not distinguish between successful and unsuccessful lien-enforcement actions, and that fee awards are mandatory, not discretionary, for prevailing parties. Property owners defending against mechanics’ lien claims should preserve attorney fee arguments under the applicable statutes to ensure recovery upon successful defense.