Opinion ID: 2359920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Nevada's mechanic's lien law

Text: Nevada's mechanic's lien law requires that a lien claimant serve the owner of the property with preliminary notice of right to lien (pre-lien notice). [7] NRS 108.245. NRS 108.245 provides in pertinent part: 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, every lien claimant, other than one who performs only labor, who claims the benefit of NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive, shall, at any time after the first delivery of material or performance of work or services under a contract, deliver in person or by certified mail to the owner of the property a notice of right to lien in substantially the following form: . . . . 2. Such a notice does not constitute a lien or give actual or constructive notice of a lien for any purpose. . . . . 5. A prime contractor or other person who contracts directly with an owner or sells materials directly to an owner is not required to give notice pursuant to this section. The purpose underlying the notice requirement is to provide the owner with knowledge that work and materials are being incorporated into the property. Fondren, 106 Nev. at 710, 800 P.2d at 721-22. The pre-lien notice is important because every improvement constructed, altered or repaired upon property shall be deemed to have been constructed, altered or repaired at the instance of each owner having or claiming any interest therein. NRS 108.234(1). A disinterested owner may give notice that he or she will not be responsible for the improvement by recording a notice in writing to that effect with the county recorder within 3 days after he or she first obtains knowledge of the construction. NRS 108.234(2). If the disinterested owner is a lessor, the notice is timely if it is filed within three days of the lease and must be served upon the lessee and the prime contractor. [8] NRS 108.234(2)(a); NRS 108.234(4)(a)-(b). If an owner fails to record and serve a notice of nonresponsibility pursuant to NRS 108.234, the owner cannot claim that he or she is not subject to, or is immune from, the attachment of a mechanic's lien. NRS 108.234(6). This court has repeatedly held that the mechanic's lien statutes are remedial in character and should be liberally construed; that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is sufficient to perfect the lien if the property owner is not prejudiced. Las Vegas Plywood v. D & D Enterprises, 98 Nev. 378, 380, 649 P.2d 1367, 1368 (1982). As this court explained in Durable Developers, a lien claimant substantially complies with NRS 108.245's pre-lien requirement when the property owner has actual knowledge of the potential lien claim and is not prejudiced. 102 Nev. at 410, 724 P.2d at 743. Failure to either fully or substantially comply with the mechanic's lien statute will render a mechanic's lien invalid as a matter of law. Schofield v. Copeland Lumber, 101 Nev. 83, 86, 692 P.2d 519, 521 (1985). In Fondren, this court reaffirmed the principle that was set forth in Durable Developers, concluding that actual knowledge of the potential lien claim was sufficient to perfect a lien. 106 Nev. at 709, 800 P.2d at 721. In Fondren, we concluded that the lessor of a commercial property who failed to file a notice of nonresponsibility had knowledge that the lessee had contracted to have remodeling work done. Id. at 709-10, 800 P.2d at 721. The mechanic's lien on the property could be enforced against the lessor even though the contractors [9] who sought to enforce the liens failed to deliver a pre-lien notice to the lessor. Id. Because the lessor had actual knowledge of the work, the purpose behind the pre-lien notice had been satisfied. Id. at 710, 800 P.2d at 721-22. Delivery of any pre-lien notice would have accomplished little or nothing and, therefore, was not required. Id.