Utah Court of Appeals
Can attorneys place liens on property unconnected to their representation? Rehn v. Christensen Explained
Summary
Rehn sued his former attorney Christensen for slander of title after Christensen recorded a lien on property Rehn purchased years after his divorce case ended. The district court granted summary judgment on some claims and the jury found for Rehn on slander of title, awarding damages but denying attorney fees under the Reciprocal Fee Statute.
Analysis
In Rehn v. Christensen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about attorney liens and the scope of Utah’s Reciprocal Fee Statute. The case arose when attorney Steve Christensen recorded a lien on property his former client Charles Rehn purchased years after their attorney-client relationship ended.
Background and Facts
Christensen represented Rehn in a 1996 divorce case where no real property was at issue. Rehn purchased property in Park City in 2000, three years after the divorce concluded. In 2001, Christensen recorded an “Amended Notice of Attorney Lien” against the property, containing multiple false statements including incorrectly describing the property as the “subject” of his representation and falsely stating it was awarded in the divorce. When Rehn attempted to sell the property in 2012, he discovered the lien and sued for slander of title.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether Christensen held a valid attorney’s lien under Utah Code section 38-2-7, which requires property to be “the subject of or connected with” legal work. Additionally, the court examined whether Rehn could recover attorney fees under Utah’s Reciprocal Fee Statute for his slander of title claim.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held that Christensen’s alleged single comment advising Rehn to wait until after divorce to purchase property was too tenuous to establish the required connection under the Attorney’s Lien Statute. The court noted that if such a “gossamer thread” satisfied the statutory requirement, “the requirement would almost cease to exist.” The court also ruled that the Reciprocal Fee Statute did not apply because Rehn’s slander of title claim was not “based upon” the retainer agreement, even though the agreement was relevant to Christensen’s defense.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes important boundaries for attorney liens in Utah. Attorneys cannot claim liens on property merely discussed in passing during representation. The required connection must be substantial and direct. For fee recovery, practitioners should note that the Reciprocal Fee Statute applies only when the underlying claim is based on a contract, not when a contract merely provides a defense to tort claims.
Case Details
Case Name
Rehn v. Christensen
Citation
2017 UT App 21
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150119-CA
Date Decided
February 2, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An attorney cannot place a valid lien on property that was not the subject of or connected with the legal representation, and the Reciprocal Fee Statute does not apply to claims that are not based upon a written contract.
Standard of Review
Correctness for statutory interpretation and summary judgment; abuse of discretion for equitable awards of attorney fees; substantial evidence for jury verdicts
Practice Tip
When claiming attorney liens, ensure the property was actually the subject of or connected with the legal representation, as a mere passing comment about future property purchases is insufficient to establish the required connection.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.