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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.245 (2026)

Notice of right to lien: Form; service; effect

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 108.245  Notice of right to lien: Form; service; effect.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, every lien claimant, other than one who performs only labor or is a potential claimant under NRS 608.150, who claims the benefit of NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive, shall, at any time after the first delivery of material or performance of work or services under a contract, deliver in person or by certified mail to the owner of the property a notice of right to lien in substantially the following form:

 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO LIEN

To: ...................................................

       (Owner’s name and address)

 

       The undersigned notifies you that he or she has supplied materials or equipment or performed work or services as follows:

 

       ............................................................................................................................

(General description of materials, equipment, work or services)

 

for improvement of property identified as (property description or street address) under contract with (general contractor or subcontractor). This is not a notice that the undersigned has not been or does not expect to be paid, but a notice required by law that the undersigned may, at a future date, record a notice of lien as provided by law against the property if the undersigned is not paid.

 

                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                            (Claimant)

 

A subcontractor or equipment or material supplier who gives such a notice must also deliver in person or send by certified mail a copy of the notice to the prime contractor for information only. The failure by a subcontractor to deliver the notice to the prime contractor is a ground for disciplinary proceedings against the subcontractor under chapter 624 of NRS but does not invalidate the notice to the owner.

      2.  Such a notice does not constitute a lien or give actual or constructive notice of a lien for any purpose.

      3.  No lien for materials or equipment furnished or for work or services performed, except labor, may be perfected or enforced pursuant to NRS 108.221 to 108.246, inclusive, unless the notice has been given.

      4.  The notice need not be verified, sworn to or acknowledged.

      5.  A prime contractor or other person who contracts directly with an owner or sells materials directly to an owner is not required to give notice pursuant to this section.

      6.  A lien claimant who is required by this section to give a notice of right to lien to an owner and who gives such a notice has a right to lien for materials or equipment furnished or for work or services performed in the 31 days before the date the notice of right to lien is given and for the materials or equipment furnished or for work or services performed anytime thereafter until the completion of the work of improvement.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 1169; A 1967, 1104; 1969, 730; 1979, 1091; 1997, 2695; 2003, 2616; 2005, 1912; 2015, 1932; 2017, 1210)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1986–2019 · leading case: Hardy Companies, Inc. v. SNMARK, LLC, 245 P.3d 1149 (Nev. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hardy Companies, Inc. v. SNMARK, LLC, 245 P.3d 1149 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 13× “Neither O’Neil nor Hardy served a notice of right to lien (pre-lien notice) on either ECT or its successor SNMARK, pursuant to NRS 108.245; however, SNMARK knew about and was involved with the construction.”
Fondren v. K/l Complex Ltd., 800 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1990). · cites it 4× “Consequently, the work each Plaintiff performed is deemed to be “at the instance of such owner.”
Bd. of Trs. of the Glazing Health & Welfare Trust v. Chambers, 168 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (D. Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “Its adoption was only seen as reasonable as part of a larger political process in which, in exchange for the shorter limitations period, Section 4 of SB223 amends NRS § 108.245 to require contractors participating in a health or welfare benefit plan to provide project-specific…”
Bd. of Trs. of the Vacation Trust Carpenters Local No. 1780 v. Durable Developers, Inc., 724 P.2d 736 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “Although the Trustees argue that the district court erred in finding the materialmen had complied with the mechanics lien statutes, our review of the record indicates that the district court correctly determined that Van’s and Las Vegas Plywood had substantially complied with…”
Bd of Trs. Glazing Health v. Shannon Chambers, 903 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2018). “But that understanding is arguably negated by the court’s next sentence, which states that § 2(1)’s adoption “was only seen as reasonable as part of a larger political process in which, in exchange for the shorter limitations period, Section 4 of SB[]223 amends NRS § 108.245 to…”
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 34× “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
West Charleston Lofts I, LLC v. R & O Constr. Co., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Nev. 2013). “This conclusion is consistent with other Nevada case law which holds that failure to file a pre-lien notice under Nevada Revised Statutes § 108.245, which also uses the word “shall,” does not bar suit on the lien where the other party had actual notice of the potential lien…”
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 17× “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). · cites it 5× “2275(6), arguing that Soligent could not enforce its lien because it failed to deliver its Notice of Right to Lien to the Reeds as required by NRS 108.245. The district court found that Soligent complied with NRS 108.”
Mata Hardscape Designs v. Georgetown West Townhouse Owners Assoc. (Nev. 2014). · cites it 5× “Georgetown argued that NRS 108.245 required Mata to provide a notice of right to lien to the individual homeowners upon entering into the contract.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.245(1) — 3 cases
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
Reed Vs. Soligent Distrib., Llc (Nev. 2019). “2275(6), arguing that Soligent could not enforce its lien because it failed to deliver its Notice of Right to Lien to the Reeds as required by NRS 108.245. The district court found that Soligent complied with NRS 108.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.245(3) — 2 cases
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.245(5) — 3 cases
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
Mata Hardscape Designs v. Georgetown West Townhouse Owners Assoc. (Nev. 2014). “Georgetown argued that NRS 108.245 required Mata to provide a notice of right to lien to the individual homeowners upon entering into the contract.”
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 108.245(6) — 2 cases
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren v.”
Iliescu, Jr. Vs. Steppan, 2017 NV 25 (Nev. 2017). “Steppan filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that, although he failed to give the pre-lien notice required under NRS 108.245, such notice was not required under the "actual notice" exception recognized by this court in Fondren 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.