Utah Supreme Court
Can amended mechanic's lien notices relate back to the original filing date? Jordan Constr. v. FNMA Explained
Summary
Jordan Construction hired its employee Scott Bell to build his home, but Bell embezzled company funds and failed to pay for construction. Jordan Construction recorded a mechanic’s lien, then amended it to include additional subcontractor amounts nine months after completion. FNMA purchased the property through foreclosure and challenged Jordan Construction’s claims.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Jordan Constr. v. FNMA, the Utah Supreme Court addressed several critical issues surrounding mechanic’s liens, including whether amended notices can relate back to the original filing date and what damages are recoverable under the statutory framework.
Background and Facts
Jordan Construction hired its employee Scott Bell as general contractor to build Bell’s home. After discovering Bell had embezzled company funds, Jordan Construction terminated him and recorded a mechanic’s lien for $126,956.92. Nine months after construction completion, Jordan Construction amended its lien notice to include additional amounts owed to subcontractors, nearly doubling the claim to $232,976.81. Meanwhile, Bell defaulted on his mortgage, and FNMA purchased the property through non-judicial foreclosure.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented five main issues: whether the district court properly quashed Jordan Construction’s writ of execution, whether FNMA was bound by judgments against Bell under res judicata or lis pendens principles, whether Jordan Construction’s amended lien notice was timely filed, whether prejudgment interest was available under the 2008 mechanic’s lien statute, and which party was “successful” for attorney fee purposes.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed on all issues. Critically, the court held that the relation back doctrine does not apply to mechanic’s lien notice amendments, rejecting Jordan Construction’s argument that Rule 15(c)’s rationale should extend to statutory filing deadlines. The court emphasized that mechanic’s liens are “statutory creatures unknown to the common law” and their scope is limited to what the legislature specifically provides. The court also ruled that prejudgment interest was unavailable under the 2008 statute because it was not specifically enumerated as recoverable.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that practitioners must strictly comply with statutory deadlines for mechanic’s lien filings. Amendments filed beyond the 180-day deadline cannot rely on relation back principles to achieve timeliness. Additionally, recovery in mechanic’s lien actions is limited to items specifically provided by statute—courts cannot infer additional remedies. The decision also clarifies that interlocutory judgments do not bind subsequent property purchasers under res judicata principles, providing important guidance for complex multi-party construction disputes.
Case Details
Case Name
Jordan Constr. v. FNMA
Citation
2017 UT 28
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20160474
Date Decided
May 22, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A mechanic’s lien claimant cannot recover prejudgment interest under the 2008 Utah Code where the statute does not specifically provide for it, and amendments to mechanic’s lien notices cannot relate back to the original filing date absent statutory authorization.
Standard of Review
Questions of law reviewed for correctness; abuse of discretion for district court’s decision to reconsider earlier decisions and withdrawal of admissions; conditional discretionary standard for amendment or withdrawal of admissions under Rule 36(c)
Practice Tip
When amending mechanic’s lien notices, ensure amendments are filed within the statutory 180-day deadline, as the relation back doctrine does not apply to extend statutory filing deadlines for mechanic’s liens.
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.