Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 108 - STATUTORY LIENS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275 (2026)

Frivolous or excessive notice of lien: Motion; hearing; consequences of failure to appear; effect on action to foreclose; order; appeal; recording of certified copy of order releasing or reducing notice of lien

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 108.2275  Frivolous or excessive notice of lien: Motion; hearing; consequences of failure to appear; effect on action to foreclose; order; appeal; recording of certified copy of order releasing or reducing notice of lien.

      1.  The debtor of the lien claimant or a party in interest in the property subject to the notice of lien who believes the notice of lien is frivolous and was made without reasonable cause, or that the amount of the notice of lien is excessive, may apply by motion to the district court for the county where the property or some part thereof is located for an order directing the lien claimant to appear before the court to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.

      2.  The motion must:

      (a) Set forth in detail the legal and factual grounds upon which relief is requested; and

      (b) Be supported by:

             (1) A notarized affidavit signed by the applicant setting forth a concise statement of the facts upon which the motion is based; and

             (2) Documentary evidence in support of the affidavit, if any.

      3.  If the court issues an order for a hearing, the applicant shall serve notice of the application and order of the court on the lien claimant within 3 days after the court issues the order. The court shall conduct the hearing within not less than 15 days or more than 30 days after the court issues the order for a hearing.

      4.  The order for a hearing must include a statement that if the lien claimant fails to appear at the time and place noted, the notice of lien will be released with prejudice and the lien claimant will be ordered to pay the reasonable costs the applicant incurs in bringing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

      5.  If, at the time the application is filed, an action to foreclose the notice of lien has not been filed, the clerk of the court shall assign a number to the application and obtain from the applicant a filing fee of $85. If an action has been filed to foreclose the notice of lien before the application was filed pursuant to this section, the application must be made a part of the action to foreclose the notice of lien.

      6.  If, after a hearing on the matter, the court determines that:

      (a) The notice of lien is frivolous and was made without reasonable cause, the court shall make an order releasing the lien and awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the applicant for bringing the motion.

      (b) The amount of the notice of lien is excessive, the court may make an order reducing the notice of lien to an amount deemed appropriate by the court and awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the applicant for bringing the motion.

      (c) The notice of lien is not frivolous and was made with reasonable cause or that the amount of the notice of lien is not excessive, the court shall make an order awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the lien claimant for defending the motion.

      7.  Proceedings conducted pursuant to this section do not affect any other rights and remedies otherwise available to the parties.

      8.  An appeal may be taken from an order made pursuant to subsection 6. A stay may not be granted if the district court does not release the lien pursuant to subsection 6.

      9.  If an order releasing or reducing a notice of lien is entered by the court, and the order is not stayed, the applicant may, within 5 days after the order is entered, record a certified copy of the order in the office of the county recorder of the county where the property or some part thereof is located. The recording of a certified copy of the order releasing or reducing a notice of lien is notice to any interested party that the notice of lien has been released or reduced.

      (Added to NRS by 1995, 1505; A 1997, 2693; 2003, 2600; 2005, 1900)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2021 · leading case: J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 41× “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 12× “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
Yonker Const., Inc. v. Hulme, 248 P.3d 313 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 8× “Here, however, while the district court made the requisite determinations and ordered the lien released, it failed to award attorney fees and costs at that time, instead directing the applicant to file an affidavit of attorney fees and a verified memorandum of costs.”
I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Investments, LLC, 296 P.3d 1202 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “The district court did not clearly err in finding that the *146 soundproofing was not within the scope of the “work of improvement” or finding that the lien was untimely and frivolous.”
California Com. Enter. v. Amedeo Vegas I, Inc., 67 P.3d 328 (Nev. 2003). “Commercial brought this timely appeal under NRS 108.2275(6). The issue on appeal is whether a lien is an available remedy for unpaid extra work costs under NRS 108.”
S. Dreams Llc Vs. Mk House Consulting, Inc. (Nev. 2020). · cites it 14× “ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an interlocutory district court order denying a motion to expunge a mechanic's lien pursuant to NRS 108.2275. Initial review of the docketing statement and other documents before this court revealed that the challenged order may not…”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). · cites it 9× “' Respondent Soligent Distribution, LLC (Soligent) filed an action seeking, among other things, to foreclose upon mechanic's liens on several parcels of real property, including the residential property of appellants Don and Betty Reed.”
Direct Grading & Paving, L.L.C. Vs. Dist. Ct. (century Cmtys. of Nev., L.l.c.), 2021 NV 31 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 4× “2d 2Century also argues the arbitrator improperly failed to rule on whether Direct established the validity of the mechanic's liens pursuant to NRS 108.2275 and, therefore, the district court can resolve the dispute.”
Mata Hardscape Designs v. Georgetown West Townhouse Owners Assoc. (Nev. 2014). · cites it 5× “Alternatively, Georgetown cited NRS 108.2275 and argued that even if the lien was procedurally valid, it was excessive due to Mata's inclusion of the $77,527.”
Simmons Self-Storage v. Rib Roof, Inc., 2014 NV 57 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 4× “During that process, appellants did not seek a district court determination that, under NRS 108.2275, the liens noticed were frivolous, made without reasonable cause, or excessive in amount.”
Tonopah Solar Energy, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Brahma Grp., Inc.) (Nev. 2020). “Similarly, because Brahma withdrew its lien foreclosure claim that it filed in the NRS 108.2275(5) special proceeding and its remaining claim on the surety bond was filed in a separate action, we need not address whether Brahma's September 20, 2018, "Mechanic's Lien Foreclosure…”
Brahma Grp., Inc. v. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC (D. Nev. 2019). “Because there was no complaint pending, the second motion to expunge created a 9 special proceeding in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County, Nevada, (“Nye County Special 10 Proceeding”) in accordance with NRS 108.2275(5) which provides that “[i]f, at the time the 11…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(1) — 3 cases
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). “' Respondent Soligent Distribution, LLC (Soligent) filed an action seeking, among other things, to foreclose upon mechanic's liens on several parcels of real property, including the residential property of appellants Don and Betty Reed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(2) — 1 case
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(2)(b) — 1 case
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(3) — 1 case
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(4) — 1 case
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(4)(a) — 1 case
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(4)(b) — 1 case
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(4)(c) — 1 case
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(5) — 3 cases
Crestline Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Lewis, 75 P.3d 363 (Nev. 2003). “Crestline then sought to have Lewis’ lien expunged as frivolous under NRS 108.2275. On December 18, 2000, the district court determined the lien was not frivolous and unilaterally increased Lewis’ lien during the proceedings.”
Tonopah Solar Energy, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Brahma Grp., Inc.) (Nev. 2020). “Similarly, because Brahma withdrew its lien foreclosure claim that it filed in the NRS 108.2275(5) special proceeding and its remaining claim on the surety bond was filed in a separate action, we need not address whether Brahma's September 20, 2018, "Mechanic's Lien Foreclosure…”
Brahma Grp., Inc. v. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC (D. Nev. 2019). “Because there was no complaint pending, the second motion to expunge created a 9 special proceeding in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County, Nevada, (“Nye County Special 10 Proceeding”) in accordance with NRS 108.2275(5) which provides that “[i]f, at the time the 11…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(6) — 6 cases
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
California Com. Enter. v. Amedeo Vegas I, Inc., 67 P.3d 328 (Nev. 2003). “Commercial brought this timely appeal under NRS 108.2275(6). The issue on appeal is whether a lien is an available remedy for unpaid extra work costs under NRS 108.”
Yonker Const., Inc. v. Hulme, 248 P.3d 313 (Nev. 2010). “Here, however, while the district court made the requisite determinations and ordered the lien released, it failed to award attorney fees and costs at that time, instead directing the applicant to file an affidavit of attorney fees and a verified memorandum of costs.”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). “' Respondent Soligent Distribution, LLC (Soligent) filed an action seeking, among other things, to foreclose upon mechanic's liens on several parcels of real property, including the residential property of appellants Don and Betty Reed.”
S. Dreams Llc Vs. Mk House Consulting, Inc. (Nev. 2020). “ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an interlocutory district court order denying a motion to expunge a mechanic's lien pursuant to NRS 108.2275. Initial review of the docketing statement and other documents before this court revealed that the challenged order may not…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(6)(a) — 5 cases
Yonker Const., Inc. v. Hulme, 248 P.3d 313 (Nev. 2010). “Here, however, while the district court made the requisite determinations and ordered the lien released, it failed to award attorney fees and costs at that time, instead directing the applicant to file an affidavit of attorney fees and a verified memorandum of costs.”
I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Investments, LLC, 296 P.3d 1202 (Nev. 2013). “The district court did not clearly err in finding that the *146 soundproofing was not within the scope of the “work of improvement” or finding that the lien was untimely and frivolous.”
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). “' Respondent Soligent Distribution, LLC (Soligent) filed an action seeking, among other things, to foreclose upon mechanic's liens on several parcels of real property, including the residential property of appellants Don and Betty Reed.”
S. Dreams Llc Vs. Mk House Consulting, Inc. (Nev. 2020). “ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an interlocutory district court order denying a motion to expunge a mechanic's lien pursuant to NRS 108.2275. Initial review of the docketing statement and other documents before this court revealed that the challenged order may not…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(6)(b) — 1 case
I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Investments, LLC, 296 P.3d 1202 (Nev. 2013). “The district court did not clearly err in finding that the *146 soundproofing was not within the scope of the “work of improvement” or finding that the lien was untimely and frivolous.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(6)(c) — 2 cases
S. Dreams Llc Vs. Mk House Consulting, Inc. (Nev. 2020). “ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an interlocutory district court order denying a motion to expunge a mechanic's lien pursuant to NRS 108.2275. Initial review of the docketing statement and other documents before this court revealed that the challenged order may not…”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). “' Respondent Soligent Distribution, LLC (Soligent) filed an action seeking, among other things, to foreclose upon mechanic's liens on several parcels of real property, including the residential property of appellants Don and Betty Reed.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(7) — 1 case
J.D. Constr., Inc. v. IBEX Int'l Grp., LLC, 240 P.3d 1033 (Nev. 2010). “IBEX sought to expunge the lien, pursuant to NRS 108.2275, arguing that it was frivolous and/or excessive.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.2275(8) — 3 cases
Yonker Const., Inc. v. Hulme, 248 P.3d 313 (Nev. 2010). “Here, however, while the district court made the requisite determinations and ordered the lien released, it failed to award attorney fees and costs at that time, instead directing the applicant to file an affidavit of attorney fees and a verified memorandum of costs.”
S. Dreams Llc Vs. Mk House Consulting, Inc. (Nev. 2020). “ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an interlocutory district court order denying a motion to expunge a mechanic's lien pursuant to NRS 108.2275. Initial review of the docketing statement and other documents before this court revealed that the challenged order may not…”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). “' Respondent Soligent Distribution, LLC (Soligent) filed an action seeking, among other things, to foreclose upon mechanic's liens on several parcels of real property, including the residential property of appellants Don and Betty Reed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.