Opinion ID: 2463817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Original Lien Statement

Text: [¶ 11] Vision claims that Lexstar's original Lien Statement was groundless on its face and should have been stricken because the date it specified as the last date on which Lexstar performed work was clearly outside the 120-day time period for filing the lien statement. This argument ignores the plain language of § 29-1-311(b). [¶ 12] The statute requires more than a finding that a lien statement is groundless. It requires a finding that the lien claimant knew at the time of filing that the lien was groundless. Here, the uncontroverted evidence submitted by Lexstar, through the testimony of its attorney, was that a typographical error resulted in the mistaken date (March 10) being used in the Lien Statement, and prior to filing the Lien Statement, Lexstar had provided its attorney the later date (March 19) on which it believed it last performed work on Vision's hotel project. [¶ 13] Lexstar did not knowingly specify March 10 as opposed to March 19 as the last date on which work was performed, and it thus did not knowingly file a groundless lien statement. Questions as to the accuracy or adequacy of the information included in a lien statement are properly resolved in a lien foreclosure proceeding, not in the expedited and limited proceeding authorized by § 29-1-311(b). Opportunity Knocks, ¶ 10, 236 P.3d at 259. Therefore, if issues of fact remain as to the last date on which work or materials were provided in this matter, those issues are questions for the lien foreclosure proceeding.