Before Chief Justice Pickering and Justices Hardesty and Saitta. Opinion by Chief Justice Pickering.
In this appeal from a district court order expunging a mechanic’s lien, the Court considered whether the district court erred in (1) relying on Vaughn Materials v. Meadowvale Homes to define the scope of a contract for a work of improvement and (2) finding that certain improvements to a project were outside the scope of the “work of improvement.” Respondents hired the Appellant to construct a shooting range, and after disagreement between the parties, the Appellant walked off the job, leaving the project incomplete but largely finished. Respondents opened the range before completing the project, and after some initial complaints by neighboring tenants, installed a soundproofing system. The Appellant recorded a mechanic’s lien more than 90 days after it had walked off the job but less than 90 days after Respondents installed the soundproofing. In affirming the district court on the first issue, the Court noted that mechanic’s lien statutes are remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to protect the rights of claimants. NRS 108.22188’s definition of “work of improvement” includes more than the particular claimant’s work on a project, and this definition existed before Vaughn; although the legislature has revised the mechanic’s lien statutes since Vaughn, the analysis of what constitutes a “work of improvement” has remained unchanged and so the district court did not err by relying on Vaughn. As to the second question, the Court noted that, because neither party had contemplated soundproofing the project, nor did the operating permits require it, the soundproofing was outside NRS 108.22188’s definition of “work of improvement.” Thus, Appellant’s lien was untimely under NRS 108.226’s requirement that a lien claimant record a notice of lien within 90 days after the completion of the work of improvement. Affirmed. (Rory Kay, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
