POWER OF BLOGS

Insight Center: Blogs

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

Iliescu v. Steppan, No. 68346, 2017 Nev. LEXIS 38, (Nevada Supreme Court, May 25, 2017)

Author: Luke Nicholas Eaton

7/27/2017

Read the full post at Constructlaw

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

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.