Opinion ID: 2548173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lien restriction act

Text: ¶6 An owner of a residence, as defined by the Lien Restriction Act, is protected from mechanic's liens filed by a person or entity with whom the owner did not directly contract. Utah Code Ann. § 38-11-107(1) (2001). A [r]esidence is an improvement to real property used or occupied, to be used or occupied as, or in conjunction with, a primary or secondary detached single-family dwelling or multifamily dwelling up to two units. Id. § 38-11-102(20). The trial court believed that this definition of residence was broad enough to encompass the condominium units on which the liens in this case were filed. We disagree. A single unit of a ten-unit building is neither a detached single-family dwelling, nor a multifamily dwelling of two or fewer units. ¶7 Statutes are to be construed according to their plain language. Dick Simon Trucking, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2004 UT 11, ¶ 17, 84 P.3d 1197. This court also interprets statutes to give meaning to all parts, and avoids rendering portions of the statute superfluous. Labelle v. McKay Dee Hosp. Ctr., 2004 UT 15, ¶ 16, 89 P.3d 113. Applying these rules to the statutory language quoted above, it is apparent that no reasonable reading of the language in question supports the trial court's holding. ¶8 Section 38-11-102(20) clearly defines residences as only detached single-family dwellings or multifamily dwellings containing up to, but not more than, two units. The condominium owners argue that the statute does not necessarily identify specific properties for protection, but, rather, suggests that a certain character of ownership is to be protected. Given that they own only single units within the development, they argue that they are entitled to the protections of section 38-11-107(1). While their argument might represent good policy, the statutory language clearly limits the Act's protections to either the typical single-family home, or a duplex. [1] In order for this court to accept the owners' position and affirm the trial court, we would be forced to ignore a clear statutory mandate and render the definition chosen by the legislature meaningless. Accordingly, we hold that the condominium units in this case, located in a building containing ten units, do not qualify for the protections of the Lien Restriction Act. ¶9 The owners argue that their construction of the Act is compelled by the maxim that a court should avoid a statutory interpretation that may be unconstitutional. See, e.g., American Fork City v. Pena-Flores, 2002 UT 131, ¶ 9, 63 P.3d 675 (noting that where more than one statutory interpretation is plausible, a court should avoid potentially unconstitutional interpretations). However, the owners ignore the fact that this rule is only applied if the different interpretations of the statute are plausible. Their proposed interpretation of section 38-11-102(20) is completely implausible. Two simply does not mean ten, and detached does not mean attached. The owners own single-family dwellings attached to nine other units. Therefore, we need not apply this rule of construction in this case. [2]