Is a Lien Claimant Entitled to Post-Judgment Attorney Fees?
In Carl B. Barney v. Mt. Rose Heating & Air Conditioning, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 18, 2008), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed, among other things: (1) whether NRS 108.237(1), which allows for recovery of attorney’s fees in a mechanic’s lien action, covers all fees incurred to enforce the mechanic’s lien, including those post-judgment attorney fees incidental to the lien’s enforcement through foreclosure; and (2) whether the district court erred in denying a post-judgment motion to enter satisfaction of the judgment because not all of the attorney fees were paid. Carl B. Barney (“Barney”) contracted with Reno Construction, Inc. (“RCI”) to renovate his house. RCI subcontracted with Mt. Rose Heating & Air Conditioning (“Mt. Rose”) to provide equipment and services as part of the renovations. Barney refused to pay for the work, which he determined was defective, and RCI and Mt. Rose filed mechanic’s liens against the property. Both RCI and Mt. Rose obtained judgments and decrees of foreclosure against Barney. Mt. Rose, prior to any foreclosure sale, garnished funds Barney held in a bank, and attempted to execute upon Barney’s personal property. Barney filed and won a motion to exempt his bank account from execution and to quash the garnishment. Mt. Rose sought supplemental attorney fees and costs (“First Mt. Rose Motion”); the court granted their request. Later, Mt. Rose filed a supplemental motion (“Second Mt. Rose Motion”), seeking fees for post-judgment matters, including the judgment’s execution, the garnishment, and the release of Barney’s bank funds.
Posted by Jeffrey Steffen at 12:31 PM
| 
Email Post
Categories: Construction | Lien | Nevada