Background
David Feekes and Megan Kriete-Feekes contracted with Triple M Construction, LLC to perform excavation and concrete work for a pole building intended as their residence. They paid half of each contract price upfront, then terminated the contracts after Triple M had performed most of the excavation and some concrete work. Triple M invoiced the remaining balances and recorded a construction lien when the Feekes declined to pay.
The Feekes invoked RCW 60.04.081, seeking summary release of the lien as frivolous or, alternatively, reduction of it as clearly excessive. They contended that Triple M had failed to provide the Notice to Customer required by RCW 18.27.114 and disputed the amount and quality of Triple M’s work. The trial court found debatable issues concerning the notice requirement, concluded that the lien was not clearly excessive, denied the motion, and awarded Triple M its reasonable attorney fees and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Triple M was not required to provide the statutory Notice to Customer because its two contracts covered excavation and concrete work, not construction of a residential unit. The court also concluded that it was at least debatable whether the Feekes were acting as their own general contractor, which independently meant the lien was not frivolous. A lien presenting debatable issues of law or fact cannot be summarily released under RCW 60.04.081.
The court also upheld the refusal to reduce the lien as clearly excessive. The parties materially disputed how much work Triple M completed, whether its concrete work was deficient, and what amount remained owing. Those questions required a trial with examination and cross-examination rather than resolution through the statute’s narrow affidavit-based summary procedure.
Although Triple M prevailed, the court denied its request for attorney fees on appeal. It held that RCW 60.04.081(4), which refers to an award following a hearing and an order issued by the court, authorizes attorney fees only at the trial-court level. To the extent Division One’s decision in W.R.P. Lake Union Limited Partnership v. Exterior Services, Inc. permitted appellate fees under that provision, Division Three declined to follow it.
Key Takeaways
- A construction lien is not frivolous under RCW 60.04.081 when it presents debatable legal or factual issues.
- A contractor hired only for excavation and concrete work does not agree to construct a residential unit within the Notice to Customer requirement of RCW 18.27.114(1).
- Disputes over completed work, defects, and amounts owed ordinarily must be resolved at trial rather than through the summary lien-release procedure.
- RCW 60.04.081(4) does not authorize an award of attorney fees on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limited role of Washington’s summary procedure for challenging construction liens. Property owners cannot obtain release or reduction merely by presenting competing evidence about performance, defects, or payment; a lien must be indisputably meritless or unquestionably excessive.
The ruling also creates a notable disagreement with Division One over appellate attorney fees under RCW 60.04.081(4). In Division Three, a lien claimant who successfully defends against a summary challenge may recover fees in the trial court but cannot rely on that statute to recover fees incurred on appeal.