Opinion ID: 880563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty to Foreclose the Mechanic's Lien

Text: The plaintiff in the case at bar has simply failed to establish an attorney-client relationship which would require the defendants to foreclose the mechanic's lien. Montana has not recognized the doctrine of continuous representation, which may have required the defendants to continue to represent plaintiff regarding the mechanic's lien. Schneider v. Leaphart (Mont. 1987), 743 P.2d 613, 617, 44 St.Rep. 1699, 1703. To establish a duty owed to continue to represent the plaintiff, the plaintiff would need to show the existence of a retainer agreement or a specific agreement between the parties that the defendants would foreclose the mechanic's lien. We note that neither party cites any specific authority on the question of whether or not an attorney who drafts a mechanic's lien has a duty to foreclose that lien. Appellant claims he had used defendants' law firm for various dealings over a period of several years, both before and after the mechanic's lien was drawn. However, the appellant's deposition states he was not sure he had call to have an attorney prior to the drafting of the partnership agreement. Further, the first time he met defendant Epstein on a professional basis was when he contacted him regarding the drafting of the mechanic's lien. The appellant stated in his deposition he had no further contact with Mr. Epstein from the time he signed the lien, until he contacted him regarding the error in the property description, in early 1985. Also, appellant's deposition shows a retainer agreement did not exist between himself and the law firm. Q. The law firm of Werner, Nelson & Epstein were not on retainer to you or anything; it was just simply when you needed work done you called and asked if they could do it for you? A. Yes. That's correct. Even under the continuous representation doctrine, such an on and off history of representation would not establish a duty on the part of an attorney to monitor the activities of their clients. See, Shapero v. Fliegel (1987), 191 Cal. App.3d 842, 236 Cal. Rptr. 696, 699. This is particularly so where the attorney had acted as a scrivener in preparing documents which a client inferred they did not intend to use. Q. When you filed this Mechanic's Lien did you intend to foreclose on the lien? A. As a last resort, yes, I did. Q. Why did you wait until March of 1985 to begin any action on the foreclosure of the lien? A. Because I didn't want to use  I didn't want that to keep him from being able to borrow the money to pay me off. Based upon the foregoing deposition testimony which the District Court had before it, we find the order granting summary judgment was proper. Appellant failed to establish the existence of a duty owing by the defendants to the appellant to foreclose the mechanic's lien.