Utah Supreme Court
Can contractors recover prejudgment interest on mechanic's liens in Utah? LeGrand v. Celtic Bank Explained
Summary
LeGrand Johnson Construction Company sought to enforce a mechanic’s lien against property owned by B2AC, LLC, while Celtic Bank sought to foreclose on the same property. The district court awarded LeGrand priority and prejudgment interest at 18 percent on both the lien amount and attorney fees, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed based on its Jordan Construction precedent.
Analysis
In LeGrand Johnson Construction Company v. Celtic Bank Corporation, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether contractors can recover prejudgment interest on mechanic’s lien claims under Utah’s 2008 Mechanic’s Lien Act. This decision significantly impacts construction law practitioners and reinforces limitations on recoverable damages in lien actions.
Background and Facts: LeGrand Johnson Construction filed a mechanic’s lien against property owned by B2AC, LLC for unpaid construction services totaling $237,294.21. Celtic Bank, B2AC’s lender, sought to foreclose on the same property. The district court determined that LeGrand’s lien had priority and awarded LeGrand prejudgment interest at 18 percent on both the lien amount and attorney fees, based on LeGrand’s contract with B2AC.
Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether Utah’s mechanic’s lien statute permits recovery of prejudgment interest when the statute does not explicitly provide for such relief. Celtic Bank challenged both the prejudgment interest award and the application of the contractual interest rate to a non-party.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Utah Supreme Court reversed, applying its recent precedent in Jordan Construction, Inc. v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n. The court emphasized that “the extent of overall recovery available on a mechanic’s lien claim…can be no broader than what is provided for by statute.” Since the 2008 version of the mechanic’s lien statute specifically provided for attorney fees but “did not provide that prejudgment interest is recoverable,” such interest was unavailable. The court rejected LeGrand’s attempt to recover contractual interest from Celtic Bank, noting Celtic Bank was not a party to the contract and lacked privity with B2AC.
Practice Implications: This decision confirms that mechanic’s lien recovery is strictly limited to statutory remedies. Practitioners should note that Utah’s legislature has since amended the statute to provide for prejudgment interest, but the amendment does not apply retroactively. When pursuing lien claims, attorneys must carefully examine which version of the statute applies and what specific remedies it authorizes.
Case Details
Case Name
LeGrand v. Celtic Bank
Citation
2018 UT 18
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20160913
Date Decided
May 21, 2018
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Prejudgment interest is not available under the 2008 version of the Utah Mechanic’s Lien Act because the statute does not specifically provide for such recovery.
Standard of Review
Not specified in the opinion
Practice Tip
When pursuing mechanic’s lien claims, carefully review the specific statutory provisions in effect at the time to determine what types of recovery are available, as the legislature has amended the statute over time.
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.