Case Title: Yonker Construction v. Hulme

Citation: 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 54

Docket Number: 

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
426 Nev, Advance Opinion S4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.

YONKER CONSTRUCTION, INC., A No. 55406
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

somata FILED
COLIN HULME AND VANESSA DEC 392010

HULME, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS hs
HUSBAND AND WIFE, ou
Respondents. *, ¢

Appeal from a district court order expunging a mechanic's lien
under NRS 108.2275. Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County;
David R. Gamble, Judge.

Dismissed.

Roliston, Henderson, Crabb & Johnson and Robert M. Henderson, South
Lake Tahoe, California; Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Dufly & Woog and Griffith
H. Hayes and Marisa A. Pocci, Las Vegas,

for Appellant.

Alling & Jillson, Ltd., and Gregory D. Ott, Lake Tahoe,
for Respondents.

BEFORE HARDESTY, DOUGLAS and PICKERING, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:
NRS 108.2275(6)(a) provides that, if the district court
determines that a mechanic's lien is frivolous and made without

reasonable cause, the court must enter an order releasing the lien and

4- 54/024.

 
awarding attorney fees and costs to the applicant. Here, however, while
the district court made the requisite determinations and ordered the lien
released, it failed to award attorney fees and costs at that time, instead
directing the applicant to file an affidavit of attorney fees and a verified
memorandum of costs, Because the challenged order reserved the award
of attorney fees and costs for a later date, it does not constitute an
appealable order within the terms of NRS 108.2275, rendering this appeal
premature,
DISCUSSION

Although appeals from interlocutory orders generally are not
permitted under Nevada's jurisdictional statutes and rules, see
Consolidated Generator v. Cummins Engine, 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971
P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998), NRS 108.2275(8) expressly provides for such
appeals when they relate to orders made pursuant to subsection 6 of that
statute, which governs hearings on motions to determine the frivolous or
excessive nature of a mechanic's lien. Pertinent to this appeal, NRS
108.2275(6)(a) provides that “[ilf, after a hearing on the matter, the court
determines that . .. [t]he notice of lien is frivolous and was made without
reasonable cause, the court shall make an order releasing the lien and
awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the applicant for bringing
‘the motion.” Here, the challenged order deferred awarding attorney fees
and costs until after the court had reviewed respondents’ verified
memorandum and affidavit. Consequently, this appeal appeared
premature, and we directed appellant to show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant, in its timely response to our show-cause order,
argues that this situation should be analyzed under Lee v. GNLV Corp.
116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000), which notes that attorney

2

 
fees and costs awards are typically appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(8)
(formerly NRAP 3A()(2)) as special orders after final judgment. ‘That
case is inapposite, however, as its discussion pertains to appeals from final
judgments and post-judgment orders, as specified in the NRAP, not to
appeals authorized by a statutory exception to the final judgment rule
allowing for immediate challenges to certain specified interlocutory orders.
Exceptions to the final judgment rule are narrowly construed. See
generally Santoro v, Principi, 274 F.9 1366, 1969 (Fed. Cir, 2001) (noting
that that court narrowly construes jurisdictional statutes); Allon v, Okam
Holdings, Inc,, 116 F.3d 153, 154 (6th Cir. 1997) (‘Interlocutory appeals
are generally disfavored, and statutes permitting them must be strictly
construed.”); of, Crestline Inv, Group v, Lewis, 119 Nev. 365, 368 n.1, 75
P.3d 363, 365 n.1 (2003) (analyzing a former version of NRS 108.2275(6),
which, unlike the current version, gave the district court discretion to

 

 

award attorney fees and costs, and noting that “[t]he appealability of these
orders does not turn on whether costs and attorney fees are awarded’).
Additionally, requiring the NRS 108.2275(6)(a) attorney fees and costs
award to be rendered before an appeal from the interlocutory order may
proceed prevents the prospect of having two appeals from what is
essentially the same statutory process. Accordingly, we conclude that
NRS 108.2275(8) allows appeals from interlocutory orders releasing a
mechanic's lien only after subsection 6(a)'s mandate has been fully carried
out, meaning that the court has directed the lien’s release and awarded
attorney fees and costs.

CONCLUSION

‘As appellant has not demonstrated that the district court's
order releasing the lien is substantively appealable or provided this court
with a copy of any NRS 108.2275(6)(a) attorney fees and costs award, this

 

 
om

 

 

premature. Since we lack jurisdiction over the premature

Anat,

Hardesty

Doug las od
Dor

yuglas

appeal is
appeal, this appeal is dismissed.