Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.237

Award of lienable amount, cost of preparing and recording notice of lien, costs of proceedings and representation and other amounts to prevailing lien claimant; calculation of interest; award of costs and attorney’s fees when lien claim not upheld

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 108.237 Award of lienable amount, cost of preparing and recording notice of lien, costs of proceedings and representation and other amounts to prevailing lien claimant; calculation of interest; award of costs and attorney’s fees when lien claim not upheld.

1. The court shall award to a prevailing lien claimant, whether on its lien or on a surety bond, the lienable amount found due to the lien claimant by the court and the cost of preparing and recording the notice of lien, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees, if any, and interest. The court shall also award to the prevailing lien claimant, whether on its lien or on a surety bond, the costs of the proceedings, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees, the costs for representation of the lien claimant in the proceedings, and any other amounts as the court may find to be justly due and owing to the lien claimant.

2. The court shall calculate interest for purposes of subsection 1 based upon:

(a) The rate of interest agreed upon in the lien claimant’s contract; or

(b) If a rate of interest is not provided in the lien claimant’s contract, interest at a rate equal to the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada, as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, on January 1 or July 1, as the case may be, immediately preceding the date of judgment, plus 4 percent, on the amount of the lien found payable. The rate of interest must be adjusted accordingly on each January 1 and July 1 thereafter until the amount of the lien is paid.

Ê Interest is payable from the date on which the payment is found to have been due, as determined by the court.

3. If the lien claim is not upheld, the court may award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the owner or other person defending against the lien claim if the court finds that the notice of lien was pursued by the lien claimant without a reasonable basis in law or fact.

(Added to NRS by 1965, 1165; A 1981, 1859; 1987, 941; 2003, 2607; 2005, 1904)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Barney v. Mt. Rose Heating & Air Conditioning

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barney v. Mt. Rose Heating & Air Conditioning (2008) nev · cites it 27× “Rose Heating contends that the award was mandated under NRS 108.237. Thus, while we generally review district court attorney fee awards, including their reasonableness, for an abuse of discretion, 5 this matter primarily involves an issue of statutory interpretation concerning…”

Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc. (2012) nev · cites it 4× “115 and NRS 108.237, which the district court denied.”

Parodi v. Budetti (1999) nev · cites it 6× “Parodi asserted he was entitled to mandatory fees and costs under NRS 108.237, the mechanic’s lien statute.”

J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co. (2006) nev · cites it 4× “Wilmington also argues that even if NRS Chapter 108 applies, the district court erred by not awarding attorney fees under NRS 108.237(3). Wilmington’s central argument is that the supplemental complaint dealt only with the issues of validity and priority of the deed of trust.”

Udevco, Inc. v. Wagner (1984) nev “33 plus interest at 12 percent from the date the invoice was due, costs and attorney’s fees, according to NRS 108.237. Appellants appeal from that judgment.”

Simmons Self-Storage Partners, LLC v. Rib Roof, Inc. (2011) nev “246, inclusive, the court shall cause the property to be sold in satisfaction of all liens and the costs of sale, including all amounts awarded to all lien claimants pursuant to NRS 108.237, and any party in whose favor judgment may be rendered may cause the property to be sold…”

Henry Products Inc. v. Tarmu (1998) nev “010(l)(a) or NRS 108.237(3). Here, without explanation, the district court awarded attorney fees of $1,750 in the face of a documented claim for approximately $30,000.”

Wilson v. Pacific Maxon, Inc. (1986) nev “040, providing for interest in contracts cases where no other rate is provided in the contract; NRS 108.237, providing for interest in statutory lien cases; and NRS 147.”

EAGLE'S NEST LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Brunzell (1983) nev · cites it 5× “Although Brunzell argues that NRS 108.237 1 mandates *717 that the contractor recover prejudgment interest at 12 percent per annum, the 12 percent per annum rate set forth in this statute was established by a 1981 amendment and applies only to causes of action which arose on or…”

Tom v. Innovative Home Systems (2016) nevapp · cites it 6× “Second, Tom maintains that the district court improperly awarded attorney fees under NRS 108.237 because a portion of the award requested was incurred during the administrative process and outside of court proceedings 13 Third, Tom claims that the district court 12 Because we…”

Simmons Self-Storage v. Rib Roof, Inc. (2014) nev · cites it 8× “NRS 108.237. However, "a property subject to a mechanic's lien should not be responsible for the improvement costs of another property.”

Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, Llc Vs. Tutor-Saliba Corp. (2019) nev · cites it 4× “The district court did not err in awarding fees to Tutor as a prevailing party The parties essentially argue whether Tutor was a "prevailing lien claimant" under NRS 108.237, given this court's remand. We first determine whether Tutor was a prevailing lien claimant on the OCIP…”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.237(1) — 12 cases

Barney v. Mt. Rose Heating & Air Conditioning (2008) nev “Rose Heating contends that the award was mandated under NRS 108.237. Thus, while we generally review district court attorney fee awards, including their reasonableness, for an abuse of discretion, 5 this matter primarily involves an issue of statutory interpretation concerning…”

Tom v. Innovative Home Systems (2016) nevapp “Second, Tom maintains that the district court improperly awarded attorney fees under NRS 108.237 because a portion of the award requested was incurred during the administrative process and outside of court proceedings 13 Third, Tom claims that the district court 12 Because we…”

Tom v. Innovative Home Systems (2016) nev

TOM VS. INNOVATIVE HOME SYS., LLC C/W 66006 (2016) nev

TOM VS. INNOVATIVE HOME SYS., LLC C/W 65419 (2016) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.237(3) — 6 cases

J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co. (2006) nev “Wilmington also argues that even if NRS Chapter 108 applies, the district court erred by not awarding attorney fees under NRS 108.237(3). Wilmington’s central argument is that the supplemental complaint dealt only with the issues of validity and priority of the deed of trust.”

Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc. (2012) nev “115 and NRS 108.237, which the district court denied.”

Parodi v. Budetti (1999) nev “Parodi asserted he was entitled to mandatory fees and costs under NRS 108.237, the mechanic’s lien statute.”

EAGLE'S NEST LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Brunzell (1983) nev “Although Brunzell argues that NRS 108.237 1 mandates *717 that the contractor recover prejudgment interest at 12 percent per annum, the 12 percent per annum rate set forth in this statute was established by a 1981 amendment and applies only to causes of action which arose on or…”

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.