Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when a mechanic's lien is invalid but not wrongful? Total Restoration v. Merritt Explained
Summary
Total Restoration recorded a mechanic’s lien for flood-remediation work that was previously determined to be invalid but not wrongful. The trial court denied Total Restoration’s request for attorney fees and awarded costs to the homeowners under appellate rule 34.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In 2008, Vernon and Sandra Merritt’s home suffered flood damage when a sprinkler system pipe burst. Total Restoration Inc. performed flood-remediation work but was never paid. The company recorded a mechanic’s lien against the property and sued to foreclose. The Merritts counterclaimed for breach of contract, wrongful lien, and abuse of lien right.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issues were whether Total Restoration could recover attorney fees under the Wrongful Lien Act when its lien was invalid but not wrongful, and whether the Merritts properly claimed costs under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 34. A prior appeal had already established that the lien was invalid because flood-remediation work is not lienable under Utah’s mechanic’s lien statute.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals clarified that the Wrongful Lien Act creates three distinct categories. First, valid liens entitle the lien claimant to potential attorney fees. Second, wrongful liens entitle the petitioner to attorney fees. Third, liens that are invalid but not wrongful—as in this case—entitle neither party to attorney fees, with each side bearing its own costs. The court found Total Restoration’s lien was not wrongful because it was recorded before controlling precedent established that basic flood-remediation work was not lienable. However, the court reversed the costs award to the Merritts because they failed to file their bill of costs within the required 15-day deadline after remittitur.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important clarity for practitioners handling mechanic’s lien disputes. When challenging liens under the Wrongful Lien Act, attorneys must carefully distinguish between invalidity and wrongfulness. A lien may be technically invalid under current law while still being reasonable when recorded, preventing a finding of wrongfulness. Additionally, strict compliance with procedural deadlines remains critical—the 15-day deadline for filing costs under Rule 34 is not merely aspirational but mandatory for recovery.
Case Details
Case Name
Total Restoration v. Merritt
Citation
2017 UT App 162
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160374-CA
Date Decided
August 24, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A mechanic’s lien that is invalid but not wrongful does not entitle either party to attorney fees under the Wrongful Lien Act, creating a third category where each side bears its own fees.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation and procedural rule interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging mechanic’s liens under the Wrongful Lien Act, carefully distinguish between invalidity and wrongfulness, as only wrongful liens entitle petitioners to attorney fees.
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.