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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.235 (2026)

Amount recoverable by prime contractor; payment of all liens by prime contractor; defense of action on notice of lien; withholding or deduction of money by owner

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 108.235  Amount recoverable by prime contractor; payment of all liens by prime contractor; defense of action on notice of lien; withholding or deduction of money by owner.

      1.  A prime contractor:

      (a) Upon a notice of lien, may recover the lienable amount as may be due, plus all amounts that may be awarded by the court pursuant to NRS 108.237; and

      (b) Upon receipt of the amount described in paragraph (a), shall pay all liens for the work, equipment or materials which were furnished or to be furnished as provided in NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive.

      2.  In all cases where a prime contractor has been paid for the work, materials or equipment which are the subject of a notice of lien recorded under NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive, the prime contractor shall defend the owner in any action brought thereupon at the prime contractor’s own expense.

      3.  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a lien claimant records a notice of lien for the work, equipment or materials furnished or to be furnished to the prime contractor, the owner may withhold from the prime contractor the amount of money for which the lien claimant’s notice of lien is recorded. If the lien claimant’s notice of lien resulted from the owner’s failure to pay the prime contractor for the lien claimant’s work, materials or equipment, the owner shall not withhold the amount set forth in the notice of lien from the prime contractor if the prime contractor or lien claimant tenders a release of the lien claimant’s lien to the owner. In case of judgment against the owner or the owner’s property which is the subject of the lien, the owner may deduct, from any amount due or to become due to the prime contractor, the amount paid by the owner to the lien claimant for which the prime contractor was liable and recover back from the prime contractor any amount so paid by the owner in excess of the amount the court has found that the owner owes to the prime contractor.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 1164; A 2003, 2606; 2005, 1903)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1975–2020 · leading case: California Com. Enter. v. Amedeo Vegas I, Inc., 67 P.3d 328 (Nev. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
California Com. Enter. v. Amedeo Vegas I, Inc., 67 P.3d 328 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 2× “222 in conjunction with NRS 108.235(1) and NRS 108.239(5) further supports the conclusion that a lienholder is limited to the contract price when a contract exists.”
Lane-Tahoe, Inc. v. Kindred Constr. Co., 536 P.2d 491 (Nev. 1975). · cites it 2× “See: NRS 108.235 et seq. NOTES [1] We have examined other grounds for the motion to dismiss and find them to be without merit.”
In re Hamilton Assocs., Inc., 66 B.R. 674 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1986). · cites it 8× “The authority that most nearly supports Sandlin’s argument is section 108.235 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.”
Apco Constr., Inc. Vs. Zitting Bros. Constr., Inc., 2020 NV 64 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 8× “See NRS 108.235(1). Nothing suggests, however, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 15 (0) 1947A " • WiSikt ":42111M14 V.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.235(1) — 2 cases
California Com. Enter. v. Amedeo Vegas I, Inc., 67 P.3d 328 (Nev. 2003). “222 in conjunction with NRS 108.235(1) and NRS 108.239(5) further supports the conclusion that a lienholder is limited to the contract price when a contract exists.”
Apco Constr., Inc. Vs. Zitting Bros. Constr., Inc., 2020 NV 64 (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 108.235(1). Nothing suggests, however, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 15 (0) 1947A " • WiSikt ":42111M14 V.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.235(2) — 2 cases
In re Hamilton Assocs., Inc., 66 B.R. 674 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1986). “The authority that most nearly supports Sandlin’s argument is section 108.235 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.”
Apco Constr., Inc. Vs. Zitting Bros. Constr., Inc., 2020 NV 64 (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 108.235(1). Nothing suggests, however, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 15 (0) 1947A " • WiSikt ":42111M14 V.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.235(3) — 1 case
Apco Constr., Inc. Vs. Zitting Bros. Constr., Inc., 2020 NV 64 (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 108.235(1). Nothing suggests, however, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 15 (0) 1947A " • WiSikt ":42111M14 V.”
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.