Iliescu v. Steppan, No. 68346, 2017 Nev. LEXIS 38, (Nevada Supreme Court, May 25, 2017)
Appellants Iliescu entered into a Land Purchase Agreement to sell four unimproved parcels in downtown Reno, Nevada to Consolidated Pacific Development (“CPD”) for development of a high-rise, mixed-use project to be known as Wingfield Towers, which agreement was subsequently assigned to BSC Investments, LLC (“BSC”). BSC subsequently hired Mark Steppan (“Steppan”), to provide design services for the Wingfield Towers. Financing was never obtained for the project and the escrow never closed on the sale of appellants’ property. In addition, since BSC did not pay Steppan for his services, Steppan recorded a mechanic’s lien against appellants’ property. However, Steppan did not provide appellants with a pre-lien notice.
In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the actual notice exception for pre-lien notices should be extended to offsite work and services performed by an architect for a prospective buyer of the property. NRS 108.245(1) requires a mechanic’s lien claimant, other than one who performs only labor, to deliver a written notice to the owner of the property of the right to lien after they first perform work on or provide material to a project. However, substantial compliance with this requirements is met if the property owner: (1) has actual notice of the construction on the property and (2) knows the lien claimant’s identity. Continue reading “Actual Notice Exception to Pre-Lien Notice Requirement of Nevada Lien Statute Does Not Apply to Architect’s Offsite Work When No Onsite Work Has Been Performed Even Though Owner Knew That Architect Was Performing Work for the Project”