Zion Vill. Resort LLC v. Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC
| Citation | 480 P.3d 1055 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | 20190831-CA,Nos. 20190736-CA,s. 20190736-CA |
| Parties | ZION VILLAGE RESORT LLC, Appellee, v. PRO CURB U.S.A. LLC and Pacific Coast Supply LLC, Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
David W. Hunter, Nathan K. Fisher, and William A. Allen, St. George, Attorneys for Appellant Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC
Bryan H. Booth, Salt Lake City, Attorney for Appellant Pacific Coast Supply LLC
Matthew D. Ekins and Dayton L. Hall, St. George, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 Two contractors who performed work on a condominium development filed construction liens against the property, alleging that they had not been fully paid for their work. The owner of the development—Zion Village Resort LLC (Zion Village)—filed petitions to nullify the liens, and the district court granted those petitions, concluding that the contractors had failed to file proper preliminary notices regarding their liens. The contractors each filed separate appeals, which we consider together in this opinion. With regard to the appeal filed by Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC dba Pro Landscape U.S.A. (Pro Landscape), we reverse on all issues, including attorney fees, and remand for entry of judgment and computation of an award of attorney fees in favor of Pro Landscape. With regard to the appeal filed by Pacific Coast Supply LLC (Pacific Coast), we dismiss part of that appeal and affirm the district court's order nullifying Pacific Coast's construction liens. We also affirm the district court's determination that Zion Village is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs from Pacific Coast, but we reverse one minor aspect of the court's attorney fee award to Zion Village, and remand for an adjustment of that award.
¶2 Both Pro Landscape and Pacific Coast were hired to work on the construction of a condominium development known as Zion Village Resort and Townhomes (the Development). As envisioned, upon completion, the Development is to include twenty-three multi-unit residential buildings as well as a community clubhouse and pool area. At issue here are three of those buildings: Building 5, Building 6, and Building 7. Each building contains four separate units, each of which is referred to as a "lot" and identified by its own specific parcel number.1 Both Pro Landscape and Pacific Coast were contracted to work on, and did work on, the construction of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, as well as the clubhouse and pool area. At the time these contractors were hired and performed at least some of their work, the real property in question was owned by Zion Village.
¶3 Under Utah law, any "person who desires to claim a construction lien on real property" must file a "preliminary notice ... no later than 20 days after" the person starts working on the property. See Utah Code Ann. § 38-1a-501(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2018). As discussed more fully below, a preliminary notice must include certain information, including the "name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person providing the construction work," as well as one of four listed means of identifying the specific piece of real property to which the eventual lien will attach. See id. § 38-1a-501(1)(h)(i), (vii). Both Pro Landscape and Pacific Coast filed certain preliminary notices within twenty days of starting their work.
¶4 Pro Landscape's four preliminary notices listed the correct parcel numbers for the four lots contained within Building 5. Under the line "Person Furnishing Labor, Service, Equipment, or Material," the notices listed "Chad Hansen," and provided an address, email address, and telephone number. Under the line provided for "comments," the notices stated that the "services [were] provided by Pro Curb USA LLC DBA Pro Landscape USA."
¶5 Pacific Coast's four preliminary notices identified "Pacific Supply"2 as the entity performing the work, and listed an address, email address, and telephone number as required. The notices attempted to identify, by parcel number, the property to which they attached: two of the notices listed "H-ZIVT-1" as the relevant property, which is an incomplete parcel designation not referring to any particular lot; one of the notices referred only to Lot 18 contained within Building 5; and the fourth notice listed Lots 5 through 8, which are contained within Building 2, and unconnected to Buildings 5, 6, or 7.
¶6 After performing work on the Development, both Pro Landscape and Pacific Coast believed that they had not been paid in full. In keeping with this belief, both recorded construction liens against various parts of the Development. As relevant here, in November 2018, Pro Landscape recorded four liens,3 one against each lot in Building 5, and therein indicated that it sought to recover $119,668.00 ($29,917.00 against each lot contained within Building 5). In November and December 2018, Pacific Coast recorded three liens, none of which were recorded against the properties referred to in its preliminary notices. Specifically, Pacific Coast's liens were filed against parcel number "H-ZIVT-1-CLUBHOUSE AND POOL AREA," and against all lots contained within Buildings 6 and 7; those liens stated that Pacific Coast sought to recover $68,907.89 ($11,331.29 against the clubhouse and pool area, $38,095.12 against Building 6, and $19,481.48 against Building 7).
¶7 In the meantime, Zion Village appears to have sold seven of the eight lots in Buildings 5 and 6 on various dates on or before January 23, 2019, and it sold the eighth lot in March 2019. At some point prior to October 2019, ownership of the Development's common areas—including the clubhouse and pool area—was transferred to the Development's homeowner associations. Zion Village asserts, however, that at some point it acquired assignments, from the new owners of some of the lots at issue, of any legal claims and defenses related to the construction liens at issue here.
¶8 In early February 2019, and as amended in April 2019, Zion Village filed a petition to nullify the construction liens that had been recorded by both Pro Landscape (against Building 5) and Pacific Coast (against Buildings 6 and 7, and against the clubhouse and pool area). See Utah Code Ann. § 38-1a-805(1) (LexisNexis 2018) (). In its petition, Zion Village alleged that it was the owner of all of the real property in question. Zion Village asserted that the construction liens recorded by Pro Landscape and Pacific Coast were invalid because neither contractor had filed valid preliminary notices as required by statute.4 In its petition, Zion Village requested an "expedited hearing," pursuant to section 38-1a-805(4)(b) of the Utah Code, "to determine whether the liens [were] invalid."
¶9 Just a few days after the petition was filed, the district court held an expedited hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement, and later issued a written ruling nullifying all four of Pro Landscape's liens on the ground that Pro Landscape had not filed any preliminary notices. The court determined that the notices on which Pro Landscape relied had been "filed by Chad Hansen, not Pro Landscape," and that the notices had therefore "neglect[ed] to include such basic information as the identity of the actual lien claimant." The court also ordered Pro Landscape to pay Zion Village's reasonable attorney fees and costs.
¶10 With regard to Pacific Coast, the court—after the expedited hearing—issued an initial order nullifying its liens, but the parties later stipulated to setting that order aside and allowing Zion Village to file an amended petition to nullify. After holding a second hearing and considering Zion Village's amended petition, the district court ruled in a subsequent order, dated April 20, 2019, that all three of Pacific Coast's construction liens were invalid because Pacific Coast "did not file the requisite preliminary notices." The court determined that "[t]he notices offered by Pacific [Coast] state parcel numbers that do not exist or are materially incomplete." The court ordered Pacific Coast to pay Zion Village's reasonable attorney fees and costs. Pacific Coast did not appear at either of the two hearings at which the court considered the validity of the preliminary notices, and it made no argument that Zion Village's petition should be dismissed on the basis that it no longer owned the real property in question.
¶11 Zion Village later filed documentation in an effort to quantify its attorney fee award. It asserted that its total fees and costs incurred to date in the case, against Pro Landscape and Pacific Coast combined, were $23,523.50. Nevertheless, it sought an award of over $17,000 against Pacific Coast and an award of over $13,000 against Pro Landscape, asserting that both defendants were "jointly and severally liable" for certain fees incurred early in the case, which Zion Village believed were applicable to its claims against both defendants. The court granted Zion Village the relief it requested, ordering Pro Landscape—in a judgment dated July 30, 2019—to pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $13,324.73 and ordering Pacific Coast—in a judgment dated September 23, 2019—to pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $17,079.40, making the parties jointly and severally liable for part of the fees. The court later augmented the award in light of fees and costs incurred in connection with post-judgment motions (discussed below), allowing Zion Village to recover an additional $6,322.50 from Pacific Coast and an additional $12,112.19 from Pro Landscape. Pro Landscape filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2019.
¶12 After the district court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Hyundai Motor Co.
...of our appellate jurisdiction "presents a question of law"); Zion Village Resort LLC v. Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC , 2020 UT App 167, ¶ 50, 480 P.3d 1055 ("We have an independent obligation to assess our own appellate jurisdiction at any time ...." (quotation simplified)). ¶30 Because we conclude ......
-
State v. Littlejohn
...that seeks to challenge the propriety of his guilty plea. See Zion Village Resort LLC v. Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC , 2020 UT App 167, ¶ 56, 480 P.3d 1055 ("When we lack appellate jurisdiction, we retain only the authority to dismiss the appeal." (quotation simplified)).II¶24 We now turn to Little......
-
State ex rel. J.E. v. State
...definition, arise for the first time in the appellate setting. See Zion Village Resort LLC v. Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC, 2020 UT App 167, ¶ 21, 480 P.3d 1055 (quotation simplified); see also Powell v. 2008 UT 19, ¶ 9, 179 P.3d 799 ("The question of whether an order is final and appealable is a qu......
-
C.R. Eng. v. Labor Comm'n
...about appellate jurisdiction are questions of law." See Zion Village Resort LLC v. Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC , 2020 UT App 167, ¶ 21, 480 P.3d 1055 (quotation simplified). And because we determine that we lack jurisdiction to consider it, we are required to dismiss Hakem's petition. See id. ¶9 En......