Court Opinion

ID: 9553534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:31:19.360613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:31.591495
License: Public Domain

NELSON, District Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the distinction made by the prevailing opinion of the instant case with that of Backus v. Hooten.1
Nor do I agree that in the instant case the so-called landscaping was done as an integral part of the building of a home.
Nor can I accept the conclusion that the installation of a concrete waterfall and pool gave the same esthetic qualities to the house, which was erected, as would the paint applied to the building after it was finished.
The enjoyment of a building should not be a determinant in the interpretation and application of the mechanic lien law.
For the reasons stated, I dissent.
CROCKETT, C. J., having disqualified himself did not participate herein.

. Backus v. Hooten, 4 Utah 2d 364, 294 P.2d 703.