Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Misinterpretation Of Civil Code § 8460 Cost Pro Per Plaintiff His Mechanics’ Lien Claim And An Award Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Defendant

Pro Per Plaintiff Timely Filed Action After Recording Mechanics’ Lien, But Sought To Recover Compensation Owed For His Work Rather Than The Sale Of The Property Subject To The Lien And Application Of The Sale Proceeds To Pay The Amount Secured By The Lien.

            In Settimi v. Hart, Case No. F079181 (5^th Dist., December 3, 2019) (unpublished), provides an interesting discussion of Civil Code § 8460(a)’s requirement that “an action to enforce a lien” be commenced within 90 days of the recording of a mechanics’ lien claim.

            Here, Plaintiff recorded a mechanics’ lien and sued Defendant dentist for unpaid compensation after working as project coordinator for 22 months on construction of a new dental building on property owned by Defendant.  The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim – concluding his action was not an action to enforce the lien.  Defendant then successfully moved to have the lien released and for an award of attorney fees/costs as the prevailing party – with the trial court finding the lien had expired due to Plaintiff’s failure to file an “action to enforce a lien” within 90 days of the lien recording.

            The 5^th District affirmed – interpreting section 8460(a) to mean an action seeking judgment that directs the sale of the property subject to the lien, and the application of the sale proceeds to pay the amount secured by the lien.  However, the 5^th District, in denying Defendant’s motion for sanctions against Plaintiff for filing a frivolous appeal, found Plaintiff did not file the appeal for frivolous or delay purposes.  Rather, Plaintiff misinterpreted section 8460’s requirement, and Defendant’s attorney did not provide him explanation in their communications when he advised Plaintiff that the mechanics’ lien had expired.

            In addressing the difficulty in communicating with pro per litigants, the 5^th District cited Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4^th 1276 which held that: “Judges should recognize that a pro per litigant may be prone to misunderstanding court requirements or orders – that happens enough with lawyers – and take at least some care to assure their orders are plain and understandable.”  The 5^th District further added that “lawyers opposing a self-representing litigant should recognize ‘that pro per litigants often do not have an attorney’s level of knowledge about the legal system and are more prone to misunderstanding the [law’s] requirements.’ (Id. at p. 1284) Accordingly, lawyers should draft their correspondence with that in mind.”