AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A real estate developer, SPO, subcontracted Sonida to build a home for a television show, agreeing to pay approximately one million dollars. Disputes arose when SPO failed to forward a third payment to Sonida, leading Sonida to file a claim of lien against the home. Sonida's lien documents, however, lacked verification upon oath of their contents (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: The court found Sonida to be the prevailing party in a lien dispute and awarded attorney fees based on NMSA 1978, Section 48-2-14 (2007), following a jury trial that awarded money to both parties (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Sonida): Argued that the lien was valid despite not being verified upon oath and that the district court correctly awarded attorney fees based on the lien dispute (paras 6, 12, 18).
• Defendant-Appellant (SPO): Contended that Sonida’s lien was invalid due to lack of verification, making the award of attorney fees erroneous. Asserted that an invalid lien cannot support the award of fees and that the district court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment on this basis (paras 1, 3, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether Sonida could prevail on a claim to foreclose an unverified materialmen’s lien.
• Whether the district court’s award of attorney fees was justified as a “dispute arising out of or relating to a lien action” under Section 48-2-14, given the lien's lack of verification (para 2).

Disposition

• The award of attorney fees to Sonida was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment due to the lien's invalidity from lack of verification (para 3).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Michael D. Bustamante concurring, held that Sonida’s unverified lien was void ab initio, as New Mexico law requires lien claims to be verified by oath, a mandatory precondition to their validity. The Court concluded that without a valid lien, there was no basis for an award of attorney fees under Section 48-2-14. The Court also clarified that the sufficiency of a lien is not an affirmative defense that must be raised in the complaint, and Sonida's failure to verify the lien claims as required by statute rendered them invalid, thus negating any claim for attorney fees related to the lien action (paras 9-27).