Menu
Home>Levelset Community>Legal Help>Can i send the lien letter instead of intent if I already warned the customer verbally?

Can i send the lien letter instead of intent if I already warned the customer verbally?

UtahMechanics LienNotice of Intent to LienRight to Lien

2 customers are months past due. And I already warned them.about a lien. Can i just send the lien letter instead of intent? And in a case where the house has been sold. Can i still.put a lien. It was like a flip house sort of thing.

1 reply

Dec 11, 2019
First, it's worth noting that Utah isn't a state which has a Notice of Intent to Lien requirement. So, while a Notice of Intent to Lien is a strong payment recovery tool, itself - sending one isn't actually required in order to file a valid and enforceable mechanics lien in Utah. Though, a Utah preliminary notice is still required at the start of the job in order to preserve the right to lien. For more information on how to recover payment via Notice of Intent and on actually pursuing a Utah mechanics ien claim, these resources should be valuable: - What Is a Notice of Intent to Lien and Should You Send One? - How to File a Mechanics Lien in Utah – Step by Step Guide to Get You Paid

Filing a mechanics lien after the project property is sold

Generally, mechanics lien rights run with the property that's been improved rather than with a particular person or company. Meaning, lien claimants will typically have the right to lien property they've improved even if the property is sold to a new owner during or immediately after the project. Of course, some states - including Utah - have laws on the books that complicate this situation a bit. Further discussion here: What Happens If I Filed My Mechanics Lien After the Property Was Sold?

Utah and the Residential Lien Restriction and Lien Recovery Fund Act

Utah has some very confusing requirements regarding mechanics lien rights created by the Residence Lien Restriction and Lien Recovery Fund Act. On residential property when that property is occupied by the party who owns it, there are strict requirements regarding the ability to file an enforceable mechanics lien. But, in order for those requirements to come into play, the property must be occupied by the owner of that property. Further, while the same protections may carry through to the purchaser of a property, those protections would only be available to the extent that they were available to the prior owner. So, if the prior owner didn't occupy the property, which is common among those who flip properties, then the Act seemingly wouldn't provide additional protection. So, it would appear that Utah projects initiated by someone other than an owner who occupies the property may follow the general rule - that lien rights run with the land and may be applicable to purchasers.
0 people found this helpful
Helpful