Utah Code » Title 38, Chapter 9 — Wrongful Lien Act; part 38-9-2 — Recording a Wrongful Lien
Utah Code

Utah Code § 38-9-205 (2026)

Petition to nullify lien -- Notice to lien claimant -- Summary relief -- Finding of wrongful lien -- Wrongful lien is void

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A record interest holder of real property against which a wrongful lien is recorded may petition a court with jurisdiction under Title 78A, Judiciary and Judicial Administration, for summary relief to nullify the wrongful lien.
Notwithstanding Title 78B, Chapter 3a, Venue for Civil Actions, a record interest holder shall bring a petition described in Subsection (1)(a) in the county in which the document is recorded if the person brings the petition in the district court.
The petition described in Subsection (1) shall state with specificity the claim that the lien is a wrongful lien and shall be supported by a sworn affidavit of the record interest holder.
If the court finds the petition insufficient, the court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.
If the court finds the petition is sufficient, the court shall schedule a hearing within 10 days to determine whether the document is a wrongful lien.
The record interest holder shall serve a copy of the petition on the lien claimant and a copy of a notice of the hearing pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4, Process.
The lien claimant is entitled to attend and contest the petition.
A summary proceeding under this section:
may only determine whether a document is a wrongful lien; and
may not determine any other property or legal rights of the parties or restrict other legal remedies of any party.
If, following a hearing, the court determines that the recorded document is a wrongful lien, the court shall issue an order declaring the wrongful lien void ab initio, releasing the property from the lien, and awarding costs and reasonable attorney fees to the petitioner.
The record interest holder may submit a certified copy of the order to the county recorder for recording.
The order shall contain a legal description of the real property.
If the court determines that the claim of lien is valid, the court shall dismiss the petition and may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the lien claimant. The dismissal order shall contain a legal description of the real property. The prevailing lien claimant may record a certified copy of the dismissal order.
If the court determines that the recorded document is a wrongful lien, the wrongful lien is void ab initio and provides no notice of claim or interest.
If a petition under this section contains a claim for damages, the proceedings related to the claim for damages may not be expedited under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Lindstrom v. Custom Floor Covering Inc., 2017 UT App 141 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lindstrom v. Custom Floor Covering Inc., 2017 UT App 141 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “Utah Code Ann. § 38-9-205 (1) (LexisNex-is 2014).”
Total Restoration Inc. v. Merritt, 2017 UT App 162 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “” Utah Code Ann. § 38-9-205 (5)(c) (LexisNexis 2014) (emphasis added).”
Zion Vill. Resort v. Pro Curb USA, 2020 UT App 167 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “And in one similar context—reviewing district court decisions, made after a “summary proceeding,” see Utah Code Ann. § 38-9-205 (3), (4) (LexisNexis 2018), about whether a lien is a “wrongful lien” under section 38-9-102 of the Utah Code—we review for correctness.”
Rehn v. Christensen, 2017 UT App 21 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “§ 38-9-205 (LexisNexis 2014)). Id. ¶4. On appeal, this court held that, although the district court might ultimately conclude that the worker’s compensation matter was not “connected with” the employer’s property and thus that the attorney’s lien was unenforceable, the attorney…”
Meritage Companies LLC v. Gross, 2017 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “§ 38-9-205(2). In the Petition, Meritage neither cited the Wrongful Lien Act nor complied with its requirements.”
Hasemeyer v. Lefevre (Utah Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “, Utah Code § 38-9-205(3)(b) (requiring a court to “schedule a hearing within 10 days to determine whether [a] document is a wrongful lien”); 10 days after the day on which the request is filed with the court unless the court finds compelling reasons to continue the hearing.”
Fernwood Place v. Layton Partners Holdings, 2023 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “§ 38-9-205(1) (“A record interest holder of real property against which a wrongful lien is recorded may petition the district court in the county in which the document is recorded for summary relief to nullify the wrongful lien.”
Medesimo Tempo v. Skull Valley Health Care (D. Utah 2022). · cites it 2× “”11 “Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, [the court] presumes[s] that no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction.”12 The party removing the case to federal court bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction…”
ACI Constr. v. United States (D. Utah 2021). “§ 38-9-205. 35 Even though ACI has not asserted the Utah Wrongful Lien Act as either a claim or defense, the court has concerns whether it could be.”
WDIS v. Hi-Country Estates, 2022 UT 17 (Utah 2022). “Although a restrictive covenant could be considered an encumbrance, we are not convinced it is the sort of encumbrance contemplated by the WLA.”
— Utah Code § 38-9-205(1) — 1 case
Fernwood Place v. Layton Partners Holdings, 2023 UT App 43 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “§ 38-9-205(1) (“A record interest holder of real property against which a wrongful lien is recorded may petition the district court in the county in which the document is recorded for summary relief to nullify the wrongful lien.”
— Utah Code § 38-9-205(2) — 1 case
Meritage Companies LLC v. Gross, 2017 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “§ 38-9-205(2). In the Petition, Meritage neither cited the Wrongful Lien Act nor complied with its requirements.”
— Utah Code § 38-9-205(3)(b) — 1 case
Hasemeyer v. Lefevre (Utah Ct. App. 2026). “, Utah Code § 38-9-205(3)(b) (requiring a court to “schedule a hearing within 10 days to determine whether [a] document is a wrongful lien”); 10 days after the day on which the request is filed with the court unless the court finds compelling reasons to continue the hearing.”
— Utah Code § 38-9-205(4) — 1 case
Lindstrom v. Custom Floor Covering Inc., 2017 UT App 141 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “Utah Code Ann. § 38-9-205 (1) (LexisNex-is 2014).”
— Utah Code § 38-9-205(5)(a) — 2 cases
Total Restoration Inc. v. Merritt, 2017 UT App 162 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 38-9-205 (5)(c) (LexisNexis 2014) (emphasis added).”
WDIS v. Hi-Country Estates, 2022 UT 17 (Utah 2022). “Although a restrictive covenant could be considered an encumbrance, we are not convinced it is the sort of encumbrance contemplated by the WLA.”
— Utah Code § 38-9-205(5)(c) — 1 case
Total Restoration Inc. v. Merritt, 2017 UT App 162 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 38-9-205 (5)(c) (LexisNexis 2014) (emphasis added).”
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.