IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ Fi lin g D at e: D ec em

be r 8, 201 5 N O. 32, 661 SONI DA, LLC, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
v. SPOVERLO OK, LL C, D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA ND OVA L C OUN TY Violet C . O tero, Distr ict Judge So m m er, Karn es & Ass oc ia te s, LLP Karl H . S omm er Jam es R. Hawley Santa Fe , N M for Appellee Kele he r & Mc Leo d, P.A. W
. S pe nc er

Re id Thom as C. Bird Justi n B. B reen Alb uq ue rq ue , NM fo r Appe llantOPIN ION

KEN NED Y, Judge. { 1} D e f

e n d a n t S P O v e r l o o k , L L C , ( S P O ) ap p e a l s a n a w a r d o f a t t o rn e y f e es to Pl ai nti ff S oni da , L L C ( So nid a) , w hom the dis tr ic t c ourt fou nd t o be the pr ev ai lin g pa rty in a “ dis put e ar isi ng o ut o f or rel at ing to a li ena ct ion ” unde r N MS A 197 8, Section 48-2-14 (200 7). T he aw ard o f attorney fees was m ade foll owing a j ury trial that aw arded m oney to both parties fol lowing a d isput e o ver con struction of a house. SP O a sse rt s th at

S oni da ’ s li enw as inv al id, tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of it s m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d onthe inv al idi ty o f So nid a’ s li enw as e rr one ous, a nd tha t an in va lid

li enc an not

sup port the a w ar d of

f ee s. { 2} The c ontents of m echanics’ and m aterialm en’ s liens are prescr ibed by statute, NMS A 197 8, § § 48
- 2- 1 t o - 17 ( 18 80 , a s a m e nd e d t hr ou gh2 01 5) , a nd r e qu i re
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a ta n y c l a i m “mu s tb e v e r i f i e db y t h e o a t h o f

[ t h e c l a i ma n t ] o r

o f s o me oth er pe rs on. ” Se ct ion48- 2- 6. W e fa ce tw o qu es tio ns i n th is c as e: c anS oni dapr ev ai l
o n a cl ai m t o fo re cl o s e an u n v er i fi ed m at er i al m en ’s l i en , a n dwa s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s
aw ar d of a tto rn ey f ee s ba se d onw ork per fo rm ed in co nj unc tio n w ith“ co ntr ac t and lien claim s” sufficiently

j ustified as a “ dispu te arising out of or rela t i n g t o a lien
ac tio n” to pe rm it the a w ar d? S ec tio n 48 -2 -1 4.2

{ 3} W e h old

tha t e ve n inli ght

of de ca de s of

li be ra l c onstru ct iona nd p er m itt ing subs tanti al c om

pli an ce in dr af

tin g li enc la im s, S oni da ’ s un ve ri fi ed li enw as voi d ab in it io
. To the extent th at n o valid lien exist ed, nothing su pported an awar d of attorney fees p re dic at ed

on a c la im “ ar isi ng o ut o f or

r el at ed to a lie n[
. ] ” Se ct ion48- 2- 14. Si nc e th e d is tri ctco ur t’s s ol e jus ti fic at io n fo r th e a w ard was Se ct io n 4 8- 2- 14 , we
co nc lud e tha t the aw ar d of at tor ne y fe es to So nid a w as er

ro ne ous, a nd w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt, r em an din g f or e ntr y of a n a m en de d j udgm en t. BACKGRO UND { 4} T he pa rt ie s do not dis put e the f

ac ts underly ing thi s a

ppe al
. Re al e sta te de ve lop er S PO c ontra ct ed wit h Ne w Me xic o D re am H om e, L L C (N MD H ) to
co n s truct a house in Sandoval Cou nty for a television show. S PO in turn subc ontra ct ed

w ithhom e- bui lde r So nid a to b uil d th e hom e, a gr ee ing to pa y S oni da ap pr oxi m at el y

one m ill iondol lars f

or th e job . B ef

or e co nstru ct ionbe ga n, S PO a nd So nid a did

not ha ve aw ri tte n a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th em , a lth oughsub se que nt
arra ng em en ts were re ach ed , an d S o n i da be ga n c on st ru ct io n o f th e h om e. As
co nstru ct ionw en t f

or w ar d, N M D H i s s u e d

th r e e pa ym en ts o f ap pr oxi m at el y $25 0, 000
ea chto SP O
. S PO f

or w ar de d tw o paym en ts t o S oni da
. A dis put e ar ose w he n S PO did not forwar d a third paym ent to Sonid a.3

{ 5} Sonida filed a claim of li en against the ho m e to protect its interests, and then
am ended it twice; all of which we re recorded in the Sandoval C ount y Clerk’ s office. All three lien docum ents w ere signed by a Sonida r epresentative and acknowledged before S onid a’ s attorney , w ho no tarized them . H owever , none of Sonid a’ s lien doc um en ts i nc lud ed

a ny langua ge ve ri fy ing upo n oa th the tr uthof it s c ont en ts. { 6} So nid a the n brou ght sui t in the distri ct co urt aga ins t S PO a nd N MD H f or the
m one y it m ai nta ine d it wa s owe d. In Co unt 4 of S oni da ’ s c om pla int , S oni dasou ght fo re cl osur e of

it s li en . S PO ’ s answ er de nie d that So nid a w as e nti tle d to f ile ac la im of li en , f or ec los e on the li entha t it ha d fi le d, or co lle ct at tor ne y fe es fo r lit iga tin g it s fo re cl osur e. S PO the re af

te r fi le d am oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t a sse rt ing tha t the lie n c la im

w as inv al id and u nenf

or ce ab le be ca

use it w as not ve ri fi ed pur suant t o H om e P lum bin g & Co ntrac ti ng Co. v . P rui tt , 196 2- N MS C- 075, 70 N
. M. 182 , 372 P. 2d 3 78. I n its re spon se to SP O ’ s m oti on, S oni daa rg ue d th at S PO ha d w ai ve d it s

‘ vo i d f or l a c k of ve r i f

i c a t i on ’ a r gu m e nt be c aus e S P O ha d no t r a i se d it as an af fi rm at ive de fe nse in the its an sw er . T he dis tr ic t co urt de nie d SP O ’ s m oti on w ith out
ex plana tio n, a nd the c as e pr oc ee de d to tr ia l. { 7} Fo llo w ing aj ur

y tr ia l i n w hic h bo th p ar

tie s re ce ive d aw ar ds, So nid a m ove d f or
an aw ard of attorney

fee s claim ing it was the prevailing party in a lien action under Se ct ion48- 2- 14. T he pa rt ie s su bm itt ed pr opos ed fi ndi ngs of fa ct an d c onc lus ion s of4

law , inc lud ing S PO ’ s r en ew ed a sse rt iontha t S oni da w as not the pr ev ai lin g party in
a lie n a ct ion
. T he dis tr ic t co urt en te re d its fi na l j udgm en t gr an tin g S oni da ’ s r eque st for attorney

fee s . In s ep arate findings and conclusio ns, the district court found th at

“ Sonida prevailed on its lien claim against . .
. De fendant SPO ” and concluded that

“ [a] prevailing party

in a disput e ar ising out of or relating to a lien action is entitled to recover f

rom t h e o t h er party

the rea sonable attorney

fee s, costs and expenses incurred by

the prevailing party .” Sec tion 4 8-2-14. SPO now appeals the district court
aw ar d to S oni da

of $13 6, 375. 75 i n a tto rn ey

f ee s. DISC US SION Stand ard of R eview { 8} Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w a n award of a tt or ne y fees foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. R io G rand e Sun v. J em ez M ountain s P ub. Sc h. D ist
. , 201 2- N MC A -0 91, ¶ 10, 287 P
. 3d 318. “ Se ct ion48- 2- 14 e m pow er s th e co urt t o a w ar d r ea sona ble a tto rn ey

f ee s inthe di st ric t an d s up rem e co urts in a ct ion s to en fo rce m ech an ic s’ and m at eri al m en ’s li en s.” Le nz v . Ch ala m ida s , 199 1- N MS C- 099, ¶ 2, 113 N
. M. 17, 821 P
. 2d 3 55 ( em pha sis
om itt ed ). H ow ev er , our

de te rm ina tio n of

whet her anunv er if

ie d li ensa tis fi es the requirem ents of Section 4 8-2-6 invo lves the interpretation of a statute that we r eview de no vo . Sta te ex . re l. M

adri d v

. U U

B ar R anc h L td. P ’s hip , 200 5- N MC A -0 79, ¶ 11, 137 N
. M. 719 , 114 P. 3d 399. W ith re ga rd to SP O ’ s m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t,“ E ve ry or igi na l c ontra ct or , w ith in o ne hun dr ed an d twe nty da y s a ft er

the 1 co m ple tio n of his c ontra ct , a nd e ve ry

pe rs on, e xc ep t the or igi na l c ontra ct or , de sir ing to c la im ali enpur suant t o S ec tio ns 4 8- 2- 1 thro ugh 48- 2- 19 N MS A 197 8, m ust , w ith in n ine ty

da y s a ft er

the c om ple tio n of any bui ldi ng, im pr ove m en t or

str uc tur e, or af te r the co m

pl et io n of

the a lte ra tio n or

r ep ai r the re of

, or the pe rf orm an ce of

a ny labor in a m ining claim , file for record with the county clerk of the countyin which suc h pr ope rty

or som e pa rt

the re of is sit ua te d, ac la im

c ont ai nin g asta te m en t of his d e ma n d s , a f

t e r d e du c t i n g a l l j u s t c r e d i t s a n d o f f s e t s . T h e c l a i m s h a l l s t a t e t h e n a me of the ow ne r or

r ep ute d ow ne r, if

kno w n, a nd a lso the na m e of the pe rs on b y w hom he wa s em

ployed , o r t o whom

he furnished the m aterials, and shall includ e a sta te m en t of

the te rm s, ti m e giv ena nd the c ondi tio ns o f the c ontra ct, a nd al so a de sc ri pti on of the pr ope rty to be c ha rg ed

w iththe li en , suf

fi ci en t f or ide nti fi ca tio n. Th e claim m ust

be v er ifi ed

bythe oat

h of him se lf or o

f so m e oth er

pe rso n .” (Em ph as is ad de d.) 5 w he re the re a re no g enuin e iss ue s of m at er ia l fa ct , an d th e m ovant m ay be e nti tle d to jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law, ou r rev ie w i s al so de no vo . Se lf v. Uni te d Pa rc el

Se rv ., Inc. , 199 8- N MS C- 046, ¶ 6, 126 N
. M. 396 , 970 P
. 2d 5 82. I. Sonida D id N ot F ile Valid C laim s of Lien { 9} W e be gin by ad dr es sin g S PO ’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to r ej ec t a s a m at te r of law So nid a’ s unve ri fi ed cl ai m of li en . I n or de r to ana ly ze thi s is su e, we m

us t d is cu ss th e req ui rem en ts fora cl ai m of l ie n t o b e v al id
. { 10} Se ct ion48- 2- 6 ge ne ra lly se ts o ut tw o r equir em en ts fo r the c ont en ts o f a va lid 1 lie n: a sta te m en t of

the na tur e of

the c la im

a ga ins t t he pr ope rty

ow ne r, a nd a verification by

oath. T he purpose of the form er is to “ give not ice [to all intere sted parties] of the extent and nature of the lienor’ s claim .” Garr et t Bl d g . Ctrs., Inc. v. H ale , 198 1- N MS C- 009, ¶

10, 95 N
. M. 450 , 623 P
. 2d 570 (in te rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks6

and citation om itted). S ince they are not in dispu te in this case, we are not concerned wit h t he su ffi ci en cy

of S on id a’s st at em en t o f th e d eb t an d t erm s o f th e cl ai m . { 11} As to the verific ation requirem ent, w e first observe that the use of the word

“ m ust ” in the sta tut e re qui ri ng v er if ic at ionby oa th c onve y s th e L eg isl at ur e’ s se tti ng
a m an da tor

y pr ec ondi tio n to the li en ’ s va lid ity
. T he U nif orm S ta tut e an d R

ule C o n s t ru c t i o n Ac tc o mp e l s u s t o r e g a r dt h e wo r d“ mu s t ” a s e x p r e s s i n g “ adu t y, oblig ation, requirem ent or conditio n precedent. ” NMS A 1978 , § 12-2A-4(A ) (1997);
se e als o , Sta te v . L uja n , 1977 -N MS C- 010, ¶ 4, 90 N
. M. 103 , 560 P
. 2d 1 67 ( hol din g that the word “ m

ust” in the statu te indicates “ that the provis ions o f a s t at u te are
m an da to ry

an d n ot di sc ret io na ry ”). { 12} It is undi sput ed

tha t the c la im s of

li enf ile d inthis ca se w er e not ve ri fi ed
. Sonida attem

pts to address this “ technical defec t” by arguing that the claim

as filed
sa tis fi ed the pur pose s of the st at ute , w hic h sh oul d be “ lib er al ly c onstru ed , ” an d by im pli ca tio n, pe rm its “ subs tanti al c om pli an ce ” by

the c la im an t. N ewMe xic o is asta te that affords liberal construction to the drafting of lien notices, and perm its sub stantial
co m pl ia nc e wit h S ect io n 4 8- 2- 6. Ch av ez v . Se dil lo , 1955 -N MSC- 039, ¶ 17, 59 N. M. 357, 284 P. 2d 1026. To a poin t. “ [T ] he reason which underli es t h e [ l i beral
co nstru ct ionr

ule ] is tha t the c la im

of li enm ust not onl y c ont ai n ast at em en t of

the term s, tim e given and conditi ons of t he contract, but su ch statem ent m ust be true.” Id

.7

(e m pha sis om itt ed ). H ow ev er , no N ew Me xic o ca se ha s y et m ad e th e v erifi ca tio n
re qui re m en t su

pe rf luo us. F or r ea sons tha t fo llo w , w e co nc lud e tha t e ve n inac om m on law atm osph ere with plenty of s lack for dra fting liens, there ar e re quirem ents that are im m uta ble , pa rt ic ularl y a ve ri fi ca tio n uponoa th o f the und er ly ing c la im tha t m ust be set out in th e lien notice. S onid a m isapprehends th e latitude our courts have provid ed cl ai m s of li ena s a ff

or din g sanc tio n to the ir

tot al la ck of com

pli an ce w iththe verification requirem ent of the statute. A. Ve rification R equir es a Form al Assertion of the Trut h of t he Lie n’s Cont ents { 13} By de fi nit ion , “ ve ri fi ca tio n” is “ co nf irm at ionof

c or re ctne ss, tr

uth , or authenticity by

aff idavit, oath, or deposition .” B lac k’ s L awD ic tio nary , 173 2 ( 1968 4the d)
. O ur

c ourts’ c onstru ct ionof

w ha t it m eans f

or ali ento “ be ve ri fi ed

by the oa th of [the cl ai m an t] or of som e othe r pe rs on” is of lon g st an din g. S ec tio n 48 -2 -6
. “ Inthe
earl y da y s of our hi sto ry , [ our S upr em e Co urt] w as dis pose d to hol d th at the
m ec ha nic s lie n law w as in de ro ga tio n of the co m m on law an d shou ld be st ric tly construed[.] ” H

o m e P l u m b i ng , 196 2- N MS C- 075, ¶ ¶ 6- 7 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks
an d c ita tio n om itt ed ). T his co nstru ct ionappl ie d to the ve ri fi ca tio n r equir em en t. F ina ne v. La s V

egas H ote l & I m prov em en t C

o. , 1885 -N MS C- 023, ¶ 13, 3 N
. M. 411 , 5 P
. 725 (“ [V er if

ic at ion ] is a subs tanti al a nd n ec es sa ry r equir em en t, a nd m

ust be
co m pli ed w ithin or de r to m ak e the c laim of li en e ff ec tua l. T he sta tut e m ak es itA lth ough F ord is gen er al ly

r ec ogni ze d a s ov er

ru lin g F ina ne , a nd i nst itu tin g 2 the “ lib er al c onstru ct ion , ” w e not e tha t th e cl ai m of li enin F

ord w as pr ope rl y ve ri fi ed , a nd the iss ue of ve ri fi ca tio n w as not

r ai se d. 18 95 -NMSC -0 11 , ¶ 9. F ord ap pl ie d s ol el y

to th e d es cri pt io n o f th e cl ai m . Id
. ¶ 8. 8 obl iga tor y by the use of the w or d ‘ m ust , ’ an d w e thi nk i t w as e rr or f or the c ourt be low t o h a v e ad m it te d t he [un ve rif ie d] pape r in ev id en ce.”) , o v e r r u l e d o n o th e r gr o u n ds by Ford v. Sprin ger Land Ass’n , 189 5- N MS C- 011, 8 N
. M. 37, 41 P
. 541
. 2
{ 14} In M

ino r v . M ars hal l , 1 8 9 1
- N M S C
- 0 2 9 , 6 N
. M
. 1 9 4 , 2 7 P
. 4 8 1 , t h e S up r e me Co urt of the T er ri tor y N ewMe xic o lo ose ne d th e re qui re m en ts f or sta tin g th e cl ai m its el f unde r the sta tut e, pe rm itt ing sub stanti al c om pli an ce to suf

fi ce in al le gin g it s f

i ve fact ua l re q u i r e ment s. Id

. ¶ 6. W ithr eg ar d to the r equir em en t tha t the c la im be

“ ve ri fi ed by the oa th o f him se lf

, or of som e oth er pe rs on[ , ] ” it he ld “ if suc h c la im

is not ve ri fi ed , it

is no n oti ce , a nd b ind s no one ; i t r ai se s no li enw ha te ve r.” Id. ¶ 7 (i n t er n al qu o t at i o n m ar k s an dci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Al t h o u g h t h e s t ri ct v i ew as t o a l i en ’s fa ct ua l cla im s w as r ep udi at ed in F ord , as noted above, this was only to the extent that th e st at em en ts co ve red by the cla i man t ’s oa th be li be ral ly con st ru ed
. F ord w en t on to e xpl ai n th at

“ the not ic e of

c la im of li en , be ing the fo unda tio n of the a ct ion , m ust
co nta in a ll the es se nti al re qui re m en ts of the sta tut e, an d the fa ilure or om iss ionon the pa rt of the pe rs on cl ai m ing the lie n of a ny of the sub stanti al r equis ite s of the sta tut e is f at al , a nd wil l de fe at

the a ct ion
. ” 1895 -N MS C- 011, ¶ 7. T he ve ri fi ca tio n
re qui re m en t ha s a lw ay s be enr eg ar de d a s ar equis ite el em en t of com pli an ce w iththe9

st at ut e. Hot S

pring s Plum bing & He ating Co. v . W allace , 193 3- N MS C- 092, ¶ 40, 38 N
. M. 3, 27 P
. 2d 9 84 ( ci tin g L yo ns v . H ow ard , 191 1- N MS C- 039, 16 N
. M. 327 , 117 P. 8 4 2 ), held that no twithstandin g liberal construction , and sub stantial com pliance
w ithve ri fi ca tio n, the c la im an t m ust sti ll “ ve ri fy

[ the ] sam e on hi s own o ath, or the
oa th of s om e o th er p ers on ” to ve rif y th e g oo d fa it h o f hi s cl ai m of r ig ht to a li en . Id

. { 15} Although the requirem ent of verifica tion o n o at h h as not changed, there has been som e “ liberal construction” perm itted with regard to verif ication. U nder Ly ons ,

“ [n] o particular form of

ve ri fi ca tio n is r equir ed

by our sta tut e, nor

is it spe ci fi ca lly req ui red th ereb y

th atth e v eri f

i c a t i o n s ha ll be tru e to th e k no wled ge of a ffi an t.” Ly ons , 1911 -N MS C- 039, ¶ 5 ( em pha sis a dde d)
. N ei the r is i t r equir ed tha t the a ff

iant ha s pers on al kn owl ed ge of t he cla im ’s tru th
. Id

. ¶ 6. T his is, how ev er , the e xte nt o f

“ lib er al c onstru ct ion ” pe rm itt ed ali en or ’ s ve ri fi ca tio n of

g o o d f ai th unde r Se ct ion48- 2- 6. H ow ev er

li be ra lly the c ont en ts o f a not ic e of lie n m igh t be c onstru ed , no c as e to da te obv ia te s th e spe ci fi c requ ire m en t f or apos iti ve ve ri fi ca tio n up on o ath of the
co nt en ts of a n ot ic e o f li en , and So ni da di rect s u s t o n on e. Se e, e . g. , ITT Ed uc . Ser vs ., Inc. v. Taxation & Re venue D ep’t , 199 8- N MC A -0 78, ¶ 10, 125 N
. M. 244 , 959 P
. 2d 969 (h old ing tha t this c ourt does not c onsi de r ar gum en ts n ot s uppo rt ed by c ita tio n to authority ).10

B. Ho m e P

lu m bin g and G arr et t A ff ir m t he R eq ui re m en t of V er if ic at ion { 16} Liber al construction o f the lien statute cannot reach so far as to rescue an
unve ri fi ed

li en . I n H

om e P lum bin g , t w o r e l a t e d b u t s e p a r a t e b u s i n e s s e s s o u g h t t o fo re cl ose on the ir re spe ct ive cl ai m s of lie n ag ai nst pr ope rty ow ne d by the de fe ndant. 1962 -N MS C- 075, ¶

1. Bo th cl ai m s of lie n we re sig ne d by the sa m e pe rs on. O n th e the first cl ai m o f l i en , a s in this case, the signature was only followed by

“ an
ac know le dgm en t i n th e fo rm ge ne ra lly

pr ovi de d by

§ 43-1 -9 , N.M. S. A
. 1953 , f or acknowledging in stru m en t s af fe ct i n g re al es t at e. ” H

om e P lum bing , 196 2- N MS C- 075, ¶ 4. The second indicated that the person w ho signed it, “ [b] eing dul y sworn . . . has
re ad sa id cl ai m an d know s the co nte nts the re of ; and tha t the m at te rs a nd f ac ts the re in started (sic) are true and corre ct.” I d. ¶ 5 (inter

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n
om itted). B ecause the question in the case w as “ if the two c laim s h ere in issu e ar e
ve rif ie d by oa th ” as req ui red by the st at ut e, id. ¶ 6, the court concluded that th e latter cl ai m was v eri fie d. Id

. ¶ 9. T he Co urt st at ed

tha t, ow ing to the abse nc e of “ an y w or ds whatsoever w hich by i n t en dm ent, plain, or otherwise, ‘ we re designed to operate as a verific ation,’ ” it did not “ find where the statem ent of claim wa s i n an y m anner sworn to.” Id

. ¶ 10 (internal quotation m arks om itted). T he Court held that liberal
c o n s t r u c t i o n d i dn o tap p l y: Whi le rei te rat in g o urad he ren ce t o t he rul e o f li be ral co ns tru ct io n, we ar e co nvi nc ed th at wit h atot al abse nc e of a ny w or ds c onf

irm ing11

co rr ec tne ss, tr

uthor auth en tic ity

by a ff idavit, o ath, de posi tio n or oth er w ise , to co nc lud e tha t the ac know le dgm en t to the ins tant c la im of lie n w as a suf

fi ci en t co m

pli an ce w iththe r equir em en ts o f a ve ri fi ca tio n w oul d be str et ch ing the ru le of lib er al c onstru ct ionbe y ond re co gni tio n, and would approach judicial re peal of the legislati v e m an date that cl ai m s sh oul d be ve ri fi ed by oa th. Id

. ¶ 12
. G arr et t

also recognizes that Section 48-2-6 requires “ that a m aterialm an’s cl ai m of li enm ust be ve ri fi ed

by the oa th of the pa rty

or som e oth er

pe rs on. ” 1981
- N MS C- 009, ¶

3. { 17} B e c au s e t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l i n s t a tu t o ry c o n s t r u c t i o n “ i s t o a s c e rt a i n a nd g ive effe ct to the in tent of the Le gislature[,] ” State v. Cle ve , 199 9- N MS C- 017, ¶ 8, 127 N
. M. 240 , 980 P
. 2d 2 3, w e hol d th at the int en t of the L eg isl at

ur e in e na ct ing S ec tio n 48-2-6 is to require som e positiv e af firm ation of goo d faith undertaken upo n oath as to the co nte nts of

anot ic e of

li ento re nde r an y

c la im the re of va lid
. F oll ow ing Home P lum bin g a nd G arr et t , the abse nc e of som e dis ce rn ab le a nd for m al co nf irm at ionof the truth, corr ectness, or a u t h enticity of a c laim

of lien by

the claim ant or another p er s o n co n stitut es no verification, and any claim of lien that fails in that regard
cr ea te s no li en . C. Sonida’s C onceptof “Sub stantial Com pliance” Is Un avai ling { 18} A cc or din g to S oni da , in G arr et t , our “ Su pr em e Court

r ec ogni ze d th at

the li en s at iss ue , e ve n th ough the y

did not m ee t the sta tut or

y r equir em en ts, w er e fi le d a nd
re co rd ed a nd we re suf

fi ci en t notic e to the pa rt ie s that the li en s e xis te d. ” (E m pha sis12

om itt ed
. ) It

se em s S oni daur ge s us to ad opt ali be ra l co ns tru ct ionr

ule to obvi at e verification entirely, as t h ey suppo se the Suprem e Court applied it in that case. Sonida is no t specific in its brief as to w hich “ statutory requirem ents” G arr et t de al t with, b u t So n i da im

m ediately quotes Ne w M

ex ic o Prope rti es , I

nc . v . L en nox Industr ies, Inc. (

Lennox) , 1980 -N MSC- 087, 95 N .M. 64, 618 P. 2d 12 28, holdin g that the lack of an ack n o wl ed g m en t does not defea t “ an otherwise valid lien” that had been filed and rec orded between the parties to the action. W e take this as an i nd i c a t i ont ha tp e rha

ps S on i da

b e l i e ve s t ha ts ince Gar re tt perm itted unrecorded not ic es to giv e ef

fe ct to not ic e be tw ee n “pa rt ie s to the a ct ion , ” 1981 -N MS C- 009, ¶ 9, its a cknow le dgm en ts w ill c ar ry the da y . H owe ve r in both G arr et t an d Le nnox , the lie ns w er e pr ope rl y

ve ri fi ed
. Len nox , 198 0- N MS C- 087, ¶ ¶ 2, 7; G arr et t , 198 1- NMS C-009, ¶ 5. Both cases specif ically recognized that verification wa s a m andatory req ui rem en t o f th e li en st at ut e. Len nox , 1 9 8 0- N MS C- 087, ¶ 6; G arr et t , 1981 -N MSC009, ¶ 5. S oni da ’ s r el ianc e on bo th c as es f ai ls b ec au se the li en s it

f ile d w er e not

“ o t h er wi s e v al i d ” u n d erSe ct i o n 4 8
- 2 -6 , wh at ev ert h e s t at u s o f a l i en ’s
ac know le dg m en ts. T hus, S oni da ’ s br ie fi ng m iss ta te s th e law in tw o im portant
re spe ct s. F ir st, both Lennox an dG arr et t specifically aff i rmed “ the statutory requirem ent that the lien m ust be verified byoath of a party .” G arr et t , 1981-NMS C009, ¶ 5. S ec ond, in Lennox, our Suprem e Court specifica lly re co g n i ze d that an13

ac know le dgm en t i s “ ins uf fi ci en t t o c om

ply w iththe ve ri fi ca tio n r equir em en t of Section 48-2-6.” Le nnox , 198 0- N MS C- 087, ¶ 6. W ith out

c om pli an ce wit h th e
ve ri fi ca tio n to es ta

bli sh the lie nor ’ s good f

ai th i n a tta ch ing it s c la im to the pr ope rty of a noth er , a nd the re by

put tin g th e cl ai m an t’ s “ ski n inthe ga m e” so t o sp eak, So nid a’ s a cknow le dgm en ts c an not in an y w ay va lid at e its c la im s of

li en . D . A ckno w le dg m en ts D o N ot S ub st it ut e F or V er if ic at ion { 19} H om e P lum bin g

c le ar ly e sta bli she s th at th e tot al abse nc e of w or ds o f verification in a claim

of lien renders it “ unenforceable. ” 1962 -N MSC- 075, ¶ 12. “ It is e sta bli she d inlaw tha t a

ve ri fi ca tio n is a sw or

n stat em en t of the tr

uthof the f ac ts sta t e d i n t he i ns t r

um e nt w hi c h i s ve r i f

i e d. A ve r i f

i c a t i on di f

f e r s from an
ac know le dgm en t i n th at

the latt er is a m ethod of auth en tic at ing a n in str

um en t by showing th at it wa s t h e act of the person executin g it.” H. A. M. S. Co. v. Ele c. Contra ctors of Alaska, Inc. , 563 P. 2d 258, 260 (A laska 1977 ). Sec tion 4 8-2-6 does not require that liens contain an acknowledgm ent, and a lien’ s validityis not affecte d by the lac k o f ack no wled gm en t u nd er NMS A 19 78 , Sect io n 1 4- 8- 4 (2 01 3)
. See § 14
- 8- 4 ( “ A ck no wled gm en t n eces sa ry f or r ec or din g; e xc ep tio ns. ”) ; Le nnox , 1980-NMS C087, ¶ 7 ( “ A bse nt a

va lid a cknow le dgm en t, a n in str um en t m ay

not be t reat ed a s a
re co rd ed ins tr um en t. ”)
. O ur Su

pr em e Court

ha s st at ed

tha t a lth oughthe li ensta tut e is re m ed ia l in na tur e an d lib er al ly co nstru ed , our ap pe lla te co urts “ w ill no t ap ply14

li be ral co ns tru ct io n t o c reat e a lien whe re n on e is au th or iz ed .” Vulcraft v. Midtown B us. P ark , L td. , 199 0- N MS C- 095, ¶ 12, 110 N
. M. 761 , 8 00 P.2 d 195. A s in Home Plu mbi ng , w e c a n n o t t a k e up S o n i d a ’ s i n v i t a t i o n t o w r i t e o u t o f e x i s t e n c e ev en a l i b e r a l l y- c o n s t r

u e d v e r i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e me n t . We kn o w f r o m Le nnox , 1980-NMS C087, ¶ 2, that pre-printed lien form s with sufficient verifications are available for sale. H ad So ni da ’s atto rn ey

ve ri fi ed the li en s, r athe r than on ly not ar iz ed

the ir
ac know le dgm en ts , th e lie n w oul d have be enva lid
. See M ars h v

. Co le m an , 1979 -N MSC- 067, ¶ 23, 9 3 N.M
. 3 25, 600 P.2d 271 (hold ing th at an attorney can
ve ri fy a lie n st at ing abe lie f tha t the c la im s w er e tr ue ); but see , In re R ei

f , 1996 -N MS C- 026, ¶

10, 121 N
. M. 758 , 918 P
. 2d 3 44 ( hol din g th at ave ri fi ca tio n sig ne d “ fo r” the cl ie nt “ by ” the at tor ne y w as “ a nul lity , be ing ne ith er the oa th [ of the client] nor [the attorney ] ”). E. Sonida’s Lien Was Void Ab In itio { 20} W e ar e not

a lon e in o ur

vie w that the se N ewMe xic o c as es uphold the
ve ri fi ca tio n r equir em en t. Bo th H om e P lum bin g an d G arr et t w er e re co gni ze d by the Wy om ing S upr em e Co urt a s de m onstra tin g th at , e ve n un de r a lib er al c o n s tr uc tio n a nd subs tanti al c om

pli an ce r ule , “ the co urts r equir e som e langua ge in the li ensta te m en t
w hic h in dic at es the subs cr ibe r sw ears to the tr uth of the m at er ia ls c ont ai ne d th er ei n in order to com

ply with the verific ation requirem ent.” W hit e v. D iam ond In t’ l C

orp. ,15

665 P. 2d 4 63, 468 ( Wy o. 19 83)
. S im ilarl y , the U tah S upr em e Co urt c ite d Home P lum bin g as one of a num be r of c as es hol din g th at , a lth oughinc lus ionof suf fi ci en t spe ci fi ed f ac ts c anc onst itu te sub stanti al c ompl ia nce w ithali ensta tut e, the verification requirem ent was a separate portion of the statute that articulates “ma n d a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s p re ce d en tt o t h e v er y cr ea t i o n an dex i s t en ce o f t h e l i en [, ]” wit ho ut whi ch “ no li en is cre at ed .” First Sec. Mortg. Co. v. Hansen , 631 P
. 2d 9 19, 922 (U tah 1 981) ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ); H om e P lum bin g , 1962 -N MS C- 075, ¶

12 ( “ [T ] he c ourt er

re d in its c onc lus iontha t the [ unve ri fi ed li en ]

. . . w as e nf

or ce ab le
. ”)
. P ut anothe r w ay in F irs t Se cu rit

y M ort gage , “ V er if

ic at ionis not ahy pe rt ec hni ca lity

tha t w e can di sc ount . W ith out ve ri fi ca tio n, no lie n is c re at ed
. O ur st at ute le av es no r oom

f or doubt a s to the r equir em en t of ave ri fi ed

not ic e of cl ai m . . . . [ S] inc e a m ec ha nic ’ s li enis sta tut or y a nd n ot c ontra ct

ua l, ali enc an not

be
ac qui re d un le ss the c la im an t c om pli es w iththe sta tut or

y pr ovi sio ns. ” 631 P. 2d a t 92 2.

“ The sim ple and conclusi ve answer to the sugg estion is that a m echanic’ s lien never
co m es int o e xis te nc e unl es s th e not ic e uponw hich it is fo unde d su bst an tia lly
com plies with the statute which authorizes the crea tion o f such liens.” To op v . Sm ith , 73 N. E. 1113 , 1115 (N. Y. 1905 ). { 21} Irr espective of any latitude perm itted in its fo rm , the a bsence of a lien cl ai m ant’ s ve ri fi ca

tio n up on oa th de feat s an imm ut ab le req ui rem en t u nd er Se ct ion 48-16

2-6. Sonida’ s failure to verif y the claim s of lien that it filed thus caused no valid lien to be crea ted. W e hold that because, ac cording to Son ida, “ the Claim s of Lie n lack the v eri ficat ion , ” the y

a re voi d ab i nit io , bec ause no valid lien wa s crea ted. T hey
co ul d n ot th eref

or e su pp or t a f

or ecl os ur e act io n o n t he li en as a m at te r of law, Sta te
ex re l. M adri d v. U U B ar R anc h Lt d. P ’s hip , 200 5- N MC A -0 79, ¶ 19, 137 N
. M. 719 , 114 P.3 d 399 ( hol din g th at f ai lur e to c om

ply w ithac le ar , unam

big uous a nd
m an da tor y sta tut or y r equir em en t or

c ondi tio n pr ec ed en t i nva lid at ed the sub se que nt
ac tio n) , or

pr ovi de a ny

ba sis fo r ac tio n unde r Se ct ion48- 2- 14 o r at tor ne y f ee s to be award edun de r th atst at ut e. Suf ficienc y of a Lien Is N ot an A ffirm ative De fense That M ust Be Raised In the Com plaint { 22} SPO specifically denied in its answer that the lien(s) filed entitled Sonida either t o f o r e c l o s e o n t h e m, o r

t o a n y a w a r d o f a t t o rn e y f e e s i n a n a c t i o n b a s e dup o n t h e m. It fo l l o we dup i t s av er m en t s b y fi l i n g a mot i o n fo r s u m m ar y ju d g m en to n So n i d a’s fo re cl osur e cl ai m , r eque sti ng tha t the dis tr ic t cour t dec lare the “ Cl ai m s of Li en to b e voi d a b i nit io ” ba se d spec if ic al ly on H om e P lum bin g , a s w el l a s f ai lur e to c om

ply
w ithS ec tio n 48 -2 -6 , e ve n by subs tanti al co m pli an ce . So nid a’ s re spon se to the m oti on conceded that “ as t o the form of t he Claim s of Lien there is n o disp uted fact[, ] ” y et asserted th at SPO was not entitled to j udgm ent as a m atter of law f or failure to plead17

a f at al d ef ec ti n th e l i en s as an af

fi rmat i v e d ef

en s e. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed SP O’s
m oti on. { 23} Bo th the dis tr ic t co urt an d So nid a se em to be la bor ing unde r a m isc onc ep tio n. SP O ’ s ple ad ing tha t So nid a’ s l ie n was vo id ab i nit io fo r fa ilure to co m ply w iththe statute (both with regard to its factual con tents and its verification) is a purely legal q u es t i o n d i re ct ed t o an es s en t i a l el emen to f S o n i d a’s fo re cl o s u re ac t i o n . S o n i d a’s
re spon se a ve rr ed

tha t i t ha d no ob li gatio n to “ spe ci fi ca lly ple ad the ve ri fi ca tio n or other specific cont ents of t he Claim s of Lien, even thou gh those elem ents m ight form a condition prece dent to recovery on the Claim s of L ien.” This is incorrect a s a m atter of law . “ A lien ho ld er m

ust . . . pr ove c om

pli an ce w iththe A ct ’ s pr ovi sio ns t o
es ta bli sh his ri ght

to the sta tut or

y r em edy a nd c an not

c la im sur pr ise w he n ade fe ndant attem pts to d efea t his claim

by proof of noncom

pliance.” Cordec k Sales, Inc. , v . Constr. Sys., Inc. , 9 1 7 N
. E. 2 d 5 3 6 , 5 4 1 ( I l l
. Ap p . C t . 2 0 0 9 )
. Ou r c o u rt s h a v e a l w a ys he ld tha t w he n ali enis spe ci fi ca lly c re at ed by sta tut e, the li enm

ust c om ply w iththe req ui rem en ts of t he st at ut e. A ir R ui do so , Ltd. v . E xe c. A vi ati on Ctr. , I

nc . , 199 6- N MS C- 042, ¶

6, 122 N
. M. 71, 920 P. 2d 1 025 (h old ing tha t “ [a ] li en or w ho s ee ks t o
en fo rc e a sta tut or

y lie n m ust co m ply w ith an y sta tut or

y re qui re m en t wi th r es pe ct to
en fo rc em en t of

suc h a lie n” ( quot ing U

nge r v . Ch ec ke r T

ax i C o. , 174 N
. E
. 2d 2 19, 221 (Ill. App. Ct. 1961 )).18

{ 24} T he pr ope r ve ri fi ca tio n of a lie n is a m an da tor

y pr ed ic at e to i ts v al idi ty , a nd the
ex ist en ce of

ava lid lie n is an el em en t of a ca use of a ct ionin fo re cl osur e of

it
. S oni da is obli gated to affir

m atively dem onstrate its com

pliance with Se ction 48 -2-6 to plead
a pr im a fa ci e ca se in its co m pla int
. S oni da ’ s c om

pla int a lle ge d no thi ng m or e than it
w as “ en tit le d to c la im ” a lie n. S PO ’ s r ai sin g th e lie n’ s vali dity is n ot an a ff irm at ive de fe nse if ba se d onS oni da ’ s f

ai lur e to c om

ply w iththe sta tut e’ s r equir em en ts. See Cordeck , 917 N. E. 2d at 541 (holding that the assertion of statutory non-com pliance is n o su rpr ise to the pla int if f, f or w hom c om pli an ce is ane le m en t of

his c au se of
ac tio n, an d cannot

be he ld t o be a n a ff

irm at ive de fe nse ); Sulli van Contra cting, Inc.
v. T urne r C onst r. Co

. , 87 5 N.Y.S.2 d 6 95 , 69 7 (N.Y. Ap p. Di v. 2 00 9)
. { 25} So nid a’ s re lianc e on B ey ale v . A riz ona P ubl ic Se rv ic e Co

. , 198 6- N MC A -0 71, 105 N.M. 112, 729 P.2d 1366 , to defe at SPO ’ s m otion as an af firm ative defense “ that
w as not ple d inthe ir

a nsw er ” is o f no ava il. I n B ey ale , w e clearly stated that an affir m ative defense is a “ state of fa cts provable by [a ] d ef en d an t that will bar [ a] pl ai nt iff’s r eco ve ry on ce a rig ht to reco ve r is est ab li sh ed .” I d. ¶ 13. T he inv al idi ty

of the lie n in thi s ca se is ba se d in a de fe ct ba rr ing the ve ry ri ght to re co ve r on the el em en ts of the cl ai m as a m at te r of law , not fa ct s. A s suc h, it is no t an aff irm at ive de fe nse . W e ha ve a lr ea dy he ld tha t a

r igh t t o r ec ove ry

c an not be e sta bli she d ba se d on
aninv al id l ie n. The re i s no vir tue in So nid a’ s a sse rt iontha t i t i s no t ob lig at ed to19

ple ad a s part of it s c om pla int tho se e le m en ts o f the li enund er S ec tio n 48 -2 -6 a s a pr ed ic at e fo r re co ve ry ; reg ard less of it s pl ea din g, it

ha d th e obl iga tio n to m ee t i ts burden of proof. { 26} Furthe r, in B ey ale , a worker s’ com

pen s at i o n ca se, w e held that because a fa ilure to giv e not ic e of

a n in j ur y ha d no t be enr ai se d by

the de fe nse unt il a m oti on for a newtri al , i t wa s fairly denied by

the trial court. W e specifica lly stated that al tho ugh the de fe nse m

ust ha ve be enple d, it

did not ha ve to be specif

ic al ly ple d in the defendant’ s answer , a s would an affir m ative defense. 1986 -N MCA -071, ¶ 24. In this case, S PO raised the issue of the defec t in the lien in its m otio n for sum m ary j udgm en t, a nd S oni dac onc ed ed in its r es pons e tha t the re w ere no m at er ia l f ac ts i n dis put e co nc er

nin g th e fo rm

of the li en s. F ro m

both part ie s’ ple ad ing s re ga rd ing the iss ue , w e cannot

but c onc lud e tha t S oni daw as a w ar e of it s obligat ion s r eg ar din g
co m pl ia nc e wit h t he st at ut e. CON CLU SION { 27} Be ca

use no l ie n w as c re at ed , no aw ar d of at tor ne y fe es c anbe “ re la te d to ” or

“ ar ise out of

” an ac tio n base d upon a nulli ty . F or the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t co urt’ s aw ar d of a tto rn ey f ee s and r em an d f

or pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w ith thi s O pin ion
.20

{2 7} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e
WE CO NCUR:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e