No. 14336
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1978
RAY C. MAXWELL,
Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant,
G. C. ANDERSON, JR., and CAROLE J.
ANDERSON, husband and wife,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
District,
Honorable Jack Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Ayers and Alterowitz, Red Lodge, Montana
Michael G. Alterowit argued, Red Lodge, Montana
For Respondent:
Meglen, Murray and Bassett, Billings, Montana
J. F. Meglen argued and Chares A. Murray, Jr.
argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: December 19, 1978
Decided: MAR 2 8 1979
Filedr , 2, 19f9
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a c t i o n i n v o l v e s t h e f o r e c l o s u r e of a m e c h a n i c ' s
l i e n by r e s p o n d e n t Ray C. Maxwell on a house which h e con-
t r a c t e d t o b u i l d f o r a p p e l l a n t s Anderson. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , o r d e r e d t h e Andersons
t o pay Maxwell, t h e c o n t r a c t o r , $15,038.88 on h i s l i e n and a
t o t a l of $9,223.41 t o o t h e r s u p p l i e r s who a l s o h e l d l i e n s
f o r m a t e r i a l s i n t h e house. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court
o r d e r e d Andersons t o pay t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n
t h e amount o f $3,500. From t h e f i n a l judgment, Andersons
appeal.
I n May 1976, G. C. Anderson, J r . , p r e p a r e d and e n t e r e d
i n t o a w r i t t e n agreement w i t h Ray Maxwell t o have Maxwell
b u i l d a house f o r t h e Andersons. The w r i t i n g , e n t i t l e d a
" c o n s t r u c t i o n agreement," p r o v i d e d a r e c i t a t i o n of a n " e s t i m a t e d
c e i l i n g -s t of $46,500" and a l l o w i n g f o r a 1 0 p e r c e n t
co -
margin. During t h e c o u r s e of c o n s t r u c t i o n , Anderson r e q u e s t e d
numerous changes o r a d d i t i o n s , which t o t a l e d i n c o s t some
$14,157.40. The c o n s t r u c t i o n agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t Maxwell
was t o be p a i d on a monthly b a s i s f o r h i s m a t e r i a l s and on a
bi-weekly b a s i s f o r l a b o r .
The c o n s t r u c t i o n proceeded n o r m a l l y and Andersons made
t h e i r payments on s c h e d u l e u n t i l September 1 3 , 1976, when
Mr. Anderson t o l d Maxwell h e d i d n o t have enough money t o
make t h e n e x t payment. Maxwell c o n s i d e r e d h i m s e l f t e r -
minated on t h e 1 7 t h o f September and withdrew h i s crew from
the project. Anderson c o n t a c t e d Maxwell on t h e 23rd t o
a r r a n g e h i s r e t u r n t o t h e j o b , b u t on t h e f o l l o w i n g day no
workmen w e r e on t h e job. Maxwell f i l e d a m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n to
p r o t e c t h i s i n t e r e s t and t h e m a t e r i a l s f o r which h e had n o t
been p a i d .
At trial Maxwell limited his proof to the issue of how
much money he had put into the project by the time his lien
was filed and the amount he had actually been paid.
Following September 1976, three other business firms,
Marchello Hardware, Sherwin Williams, and American Appliance
Co., also filed liens on materials used on the project. By
the pleadings, the parties had put into issue the question
of which party, the Andersons or Maxwell, was responsible
for this payment. (The American Appliance lien was included
in Maxwell's lien, and Maxwell has acknowledged its payment
prior to appeal.)
At the conclusion of trial without a jury, the court
entered the following conclusions and judgment:
"1. Mr. Maxwell has filed a mechanic's lien in
accordance with Section 45-502, Revised Codes of
Montana, 1947, as amended.
"2. The mechanic's lien was properly foreclosed
and recovers the value of labor and material as
set forth in the lien.
"3. Mr. Maxwell substantially completed construc-
tion of the defendants' dwelling.
"4. The defendants are legally responsible for
additional liens and charges against the defen-
dants, individually or against the property.
"5. The term 'estimates' as used in the May 15,
1976, agreement does not limit the amount of money
that the plaintiff may recover.
"6. That the defendant, G. C. Anderson, is not
entitled to any damages based on loss of wages.
"7. That Mr. Maxwell is not a general contractor
as a matter of law.
"8. The plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attor-
neys' fees as provided by Section 93-8614, Revised
Codes of Montana, 1947, as amended.
"JUDGMENT
"Pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact and Con-
clusions of Law, judgment is entered in plaintiff's
favor as follows:
" 1 . The d e f e n d a n t s s h a l l pay t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h e
sum o f F i f t e e n Thousand S i x Hundred T h i r t y - S i x and
38/100 D o l l a r s , ( $ 1 5 , 6 3 6 . 3 8 ) , minus t h e f o l l o w i n g
s e t - o f f s , f o r a t o t a l o f F i f t e e n Thousand T h i r t y -
E i g h t a n d 88/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 1 5 , 0 3 8 . 8 8 ) :
"a. Bypass Valve----------- $70.00
"b. Correction of Wall----- 7.50
"c. C o r r e c t i o n o f S t a i r w e l l 20.00
"d. Correction of C r a w l
S p a c e ---------------- 500.00
$597.50
" 2 . The d e f e n d a n t s s h a l l pay t o t h e p l a i n t i f f
i n t e r e s t on t h e a b o v e amount from September 23,
1976, u n t i l t h e e n t i r e d e b t h a s b e e n p a i d i n f u l l .
"3. That i n t h e e v e n t t h e defendants a r e unable
t o pay t h e amount o f t h e judgment, t h e C o u r t s h a l l
s u p e r v i s e t h e s a l e o f a n y and a l l a s s e t s o f d e f e n -
d a n t s which may b e h e l d t o s a t i s f y s a i d judgment.
" 4 . T h a t p l a i n t i f f h a v e judgment a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s
f o r any d e f i c i e n c y remaining i n t h e e v e n t t h e pro-
c e e d s from t h e s a l e d o n o t s a t i s f y p l a i n t i f f ' s
claim.
" 5 . T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s pay a n y and a l l a d d i t i o n a l
l i e n s against t h e property.
" 6 . The d e f e n d a n t s s h a l l pay r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y s '
f e e s i n t h e amount o f T h i r t y F i v e Hundred D o l l a r s
( $ 3 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) , a n d t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a l l pay t h e b a l a n c e
o f F i f t e e n Hundred Two D o l l a r s ( $ 1 5 0 2 . 0 0 ) .
" 7 . T h a t d e f e n d a n t s s h a l l pay a l l c o s t s o f s u i t . "
A p p e l l a n t s p r e s e n t f i v e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w by t h i s
Court:
1. Is a l i e n h o l d e r e n t i t l e d t o judgment on h i s m e c h a n i c ' s
l i e n without reference t o an estimated p r i c e s t a t e d i n t h e
c o n t r a c t upon which t h e l i e n i s b a s e d ?
2. Is t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a l i e n f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n
e n t i t l e d t o a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t when t h e l i e n h o l d e r f a i l s t o
show by t h e p a r t i e s ' c o n t r a c t t h a t h e w a s i n f a c t e n t i t l e d
t o t h e amount o n which h e i n t e n d s t o f o r e c l o s e ?
3. Is a n award of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s p r o p e r l y made when
( a ) t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e on
f e e s i t s case-in-chief? and,
( b ) t h e l o s i n g p a r t y had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s -
examine a s t o t h e amount o f f e e s i n v o l v e d ?
4. May a D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y o r d e r a p a r t y i n a
l i e n f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n t o pay o f f l i e n s h e l d by o t h e r
l i e n h o l d e r s who a r e n o t p a r t i e s t o t h e f o r e c l o s u r e ?
5. Is a n a p p e l l a n t e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n t h e
e v e n t t h a t h e p r e v a i l s on a p p e a l ?
The f i r s t two i s s u e s i n v o l v e t h e same b a s i c q u e s t i o n
and c a n b e t r e a t e d a s one i s s u e .
A p p e l l a n t s ' p o s i t i o n i s t h a t t h e maximum p r i c e t h e y
c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o pay under t h e f a c t s i s t h e " t o t a l
c e i l i n g c o s t " of $51,150 p l u s a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s f o r t h e i r
a l t e r a t i o n s , amounting t o $14,157.40. Although a p p e l l a n t s
do not s t a t e t h i s f i g u r e i n t h e i r b r i e f , it appears t h a t t h e
t o t a l t h e y c o n s i d e r t h e m s e l v e s t o owe Maxwell under any
c i r c u m s t a n c e i s $65,307.40. A p p e l l a n t s do n o t c o n s i d e r
t h e m s e l v e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment of $9,223.41 t o o t h e r
contractors. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h e
Andersons " l e g a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d d i t i o n a l l i e n s and
charges."
Maxwell c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e h e c h o s e t o p r o c e e d under
t h e l i e n s t a t u t e s , r a t h e r t h a n c o n t r a c t law, t h e l i e n law
governs t h i s case. Under t h e a p p l i c a b l e l i e n law, h e con-
t e n d s , h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a n e q u i t a b l e quantum m e r u i t f o r
m a t e r i a l s and l a b o r p u t i n t o t h e p r o j e c t w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o
any u n d e r l y i n g c o n t r a c t o r agreement. H e f u r t h e r argues
t h a t , even i f t h e m a t t e r were t o b e d e c i d e d under c o n t r a c t
law, t h e e s t i m a t e d p r i c e i n d i c a t e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
a g r e e m e n t would n o t a c t a s a l i m i t on t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s
recovery.
The Montana m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n s s t a t u t e d o e s n o t s p e c i -
f i c a l l y s a y what r o l e t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e owner and
l i e n h o l d e r p l a y s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f t h e l i e n .
S e c t i o n 45-501, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 71-3-501 MCA,
simply provides:
"Every ... builder ... p e r f o r m i n g any work
a n d l a b o r upon, o r f u r n i s h i n g any m a t e r i a l ...
f o r , any b u i l d i n g ... upon complying w i t h t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r , f o r h i s work o r l a b o r
alone, o r material . . . furnished, has a l i e n
upon t h e p r o p e r t y upon which t h e work o r l a b o r
i s done o r material i s f u r n i s h e d . "
While a n a g r e e m e n t i s n e c e s s a r y as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o a
l i e n ' s e x i s t e n c e , t h e r i g h t i s s t a t u t o r y and n o t d e p e n d e n t
o n w h e t h e r t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owners of t h e p r o p e r t y i s
w r i t t e n , o r a l , express o r implied. Nontana d e c i s i o n s a r e
less c l e a r a s t o how t h e t o t a l c o n t r a c t p r i c e a f f e c t s t h e
amount o f t h e l i e n . The p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by ap-
p e l l a n t s h e r e was a d d r e s s e d i n S m i t h v . G u n n i s s ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 5
Mont. 362, 383-84, 1 4 4 P.2d 186, 193. I n Gunniss t h e owners
had c o n t r a c t e d f o r work t o b e done on t h e i r home, b u t had
n o t a g r e e d upon a t o t a l p r i c e . I n s t e a d , t h e owners had
a g r e e d t o pay f o r t h e r e m o d e l i n g by s i g n i n g " a T i t l e One
F e d e r a l Housing n o t e i n t h e amount d u e " a t t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f
the project. Such n o t e s w e r e l i m i t e d t o $2500 by l a w .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e owners a r g u e d t h a t t h e y had l i m i t e d t h e i r
o b l i g a t i o n t o t h a t amount. The C o u r t n o t e d , however, t h a t
t h e owners had been a p p r i s e d d u r i n g t h e r e m o d e l i n g t h a t t h e
c o s t s w e r e g o i n g o v e r $2900 and t h a t t h e owners p e r m i t t e d
t h e work t o c o n t i n u e beyond t h a t p o i n t . Thus, i t r u l e d t h a t
t h e owners had a c q u i e s c e d i n a n abandonment o f t h a t c o n t r a c t
provision.
Gunniss i s n o t o u r c a s e on a l l p o i n t s b u t d o e s demon-
s t r a t e t h a t under p r o p e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n award c a n b e made
b a s e d on t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t of l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s f u r -
n i s h e d by t h e l i e n h o l d e r , i n d i s r e g a r d o f t h e o r i g i n a l
contract.
Maxwell i s i n a s t r o n g e r p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e he was
b u i l d i n g under a n agreement drawn by t h e owner which w a s
based on an " e s t i m a t e d " c o s t of m a t e r i a l and l a b o r f o r a
certain structure. The e s t i m a t e d c o s t was f u r t h e r s u b j e c t
t o a number o f v a r i a b l e s , i . e . , 10 percent o r i g i n a l e r r o r ,
owner p e r m i t t e d t o f u r n i s h a l l l a b o r p o s s i b l e t o h o l d down
c o s t s and t h e a b s o l u t e r i g h t of t h e owner t o change p l a n s
and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a t w i l l . I n any e v e n t , o t h e r c o u r t s have
d e t e r m i n e d e s t i m a t e d c o s t s t o mean:
"The ' e s t i m a t e d c o s t ' o f a b u i l d i n g means t h e rea-
sonable c o s t of a b u i l d i n g e r e c t e d i n accordance
w i t h p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o and n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y t h e amount a g r e e d upon by t h e p a r t i e s
o r an o f f e r a c c e p t e d by d e f e n d a n t . . . An e s t i m a t e
i s e q u i v a l e n t of 'more o r l e s s ' and d o e s n o t p r e -
t e n d t o be based on a b s o l u t e c a l c u l a t i o n s . Use of
t h e word p r e c l u d e s a c c u r a c y . 'To make a n e s t i m a t e '
o r d i n a r i l y means t o c a l c u l a t e r o u g h l y o r t o form
a n o p i n i o n a s t o amount from i m p e r f e c t d a t a . See
B e e l e r v . M i l l e r , Mo. App., 254 S.W.2d 986, 990,
and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d ; 1 5 Words and P h r a s e s , ' E s -
t i m a t e ' , pp. 373-380; Black, Law D i c t i o n a r y ( F o u r t h
Ed. 1 9 5 1 ) , 648; B a l l e n t i n e ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y ( T h i r d
Ed. 1 9 6 9 ) , 420." Denniston and P a r t r i d g e Co. v .
Mingus (Iowa 1 9 7 0 ) , 179 N.W.2d 748, 752-53.
A p p e l l a n t s a d m i t t h a t a l l m a t e r i a l and l a b o r c l a i m e d by
Maxwell were i n f a c t used i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e h o u s e ,
and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s changed t h e p l a n s many t i m e s d u r i n g
construction. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found that t h e owners
" a c t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y and f o r t h e i r own b e n e f i t when t h e y
p u r c h a s e d m a t e r i a l and s e c u r e d s e r v i c e s from o t h e r c o n t r a c t o r s . "
A p p e l l a n t s do n o t a t t e m p t t o show e v i d e n c e c o n t r a r y t o
t h e D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion. They r e l y i n s t e a d upon t h e
c o n t r a c t o r ' s f a i l u r e t o show a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e c o n s t r u c -
t i o n agreement a l l o w i n g f o r a h i g h e r t o t a l p r i c e . In this
kind of s i t u a t i o n , i t i s n o t necessary t o prove a modifica-
t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t by Maxwell. The p a r t i e s n e v e r had a
"firm" c e i l i n g . Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly
d e t e r m i n e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e l i e n which Maxwell h e l d on
Andersons' house. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t on t h i s i s s u e were n e v e r c h a l l e n g e d by s u b s t a n -
t i a l e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y and must s t a n d a f f i r m e d .
Morrison v . C i t y of B u t t e ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 150 Mont. 106, 112, 431
P.2d 79.
The r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s may be t r e a t e d summarily. First,
a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t wrongly awarded
Maxwell a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s b e c a u s e Maxwell f a i l e d t o p u t on
e v i d e n c e of f e e s d u r i n g h i s c a s e - i n - c h i e f and b e c a u s e a p p e l -
l a n t s were d e n i e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine a s t o
t h e i r reasonableness.
A s t o t h e f i r s t objection, appellants focus primarily
on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o o f f e r a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r
p e r m i t t i n g Maxwell t o reopen h i s c a s e - i n - c h i e f and p r e s e n t
evidence of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . A p p e l l a n t s concede t h a t t h e
m a t t e r of p e r m i t t i n g a l i t i g a n t t o r e o p e n h i s c a s e - i n - c h i e f
i s p l a c e d w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Section
9 3 - 5 1 0 1 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 25-7-301(4) MCA. They
c o n t e n d , however, t h a t t h e y were i n j u r e d by t h e c o u r t ' s
a c t i o n by t h e mere f a c t t h a t Maxwell was p e r m i t t e d t o p u t on
e v i d e n c e and r e c e i v e d a n award. T h i s h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h
t h e i n j u r y t h a t m i g h t r e s u l t from a d i s o r d e r l y p r e s e n t a t i o n
of e v i d e n c e . N showing i s made t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were i n -
o
j u r e d by t h e manner i n which t h e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d .
While r e o p e n i n g a c a s e - i n - c h i e f may n o t be d e s i r a b l e , a more
s u b s t a n t i a l showing of harm s h o u l d b e made b e f o r e t h i s i s
declared reversible error.
A s t o t h e second c o n t e n t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered
Maxwell t o p r e s e n t a n i t e m i z e d s t a t e m e n t w i t h i n twenty d a y s ,
which h e d i d . Some two months l a t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and judgment. Appellants
c o u l d have o b t a i n e d a copy and e n t e r e d t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s a t
any t i m e d u r i n g t h e i n t e r i m . They s h o u l d n o t now be p e r -
mitted t o r a i s e the issue a s reversible error.
Appellants' next i s s u e concerns t h e D i s t r i c t Court's
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o o r d e r them t o pay d e b t s and l i e n s t o e n t i -
ties not parties t o the foreclosure action. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d i d n o t o r d e r a p p e l l a n t s t o make payments of any
s p e c i f i c sums t o s p e c i f i c b u s i n e s s e s . I n s t e a d , it found
a p p e l l a n t s l e g a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o t h e r l i e n s and c h a r g e s
and o r d e r e d g e n e r a l l y t h a t a p p e l l a n t s pay t h o s e .
The i s s u e of o t h e r l i e n s and c h a r g e s a r o s e from t h e
a c t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s . Maxwell i n c l u d e d t h e l i e n o f A m e r i -
c a n A p p l i a n c e Co. i n h i s amended l i e n . A p p e l l a n t s , on
November 2 , 1977, s u b m i t t e d a motion t o amend t h e i r answer
and c o u n t e r c l a i m . I n t h e i r amended c o u n t e r c l a i m t h e y a s k e d
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o o r d e r Maxwell t o pay t h e d e b t s t o
M a r c h e l l o Hardware and Sherwin W i l l i a m s Co. Thus, t h e
p a r t i e s asked t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e which of them
owed v a r i o u s s e p a r a t e b u s i n e s s e s and t h e r e b y s u b m i t t e d
themselves t o i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . On t h i s b a s i s t h e r e a p p e a r s
no r e a s o n t o r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
which p a r t y owes t h e s e o t h e r d e b t s .
Appellants' l a s t i s s u e involves a t t o r n e y ' s fees. heir
argument i s v e r y b r i e f on t h i s p o i n t . They n o t e f i r s t t h a t
t h e y r e q u e s t e d r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n t h e i r answer
and c o u n t e r c l a i m . Second, t h e y p o i n t t o t h e e v i d e n c e of
a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s which t h e y p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . Third, they
n o t e t h a t on A p r i l 1 5 , 1977, t h e y made a n o f f e r of judgment
t o p l a i n t i f f , c o n d i t i o n e d upon p l a i n t i f f ' s p a y i n g o f f a l l
t h e o t h e r m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n s which had been f i l e d on t h e
house. T h e i r argument t h e n i s :
"Given t h e f a i l u r e o f proof on t h e p a r t of
Respondent, a s w e l l a s A p p e l l a n t s ' w i l l i n g -
ness t o s e t t l e t h i s matter e a r l y on, it i s
submitted t h a t Appellants w e r e e n t i t l e d t o be
awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s a s prayed f o r and t h a t
t h e Supreme C o u r t s h o u l d e i t h e r o r d e r t h e
payment of s u c h a t t o r n e y f e e s t o A p p e l l a n t s
o r remand t h e i s s u e of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y i n con-
nection therewith. "
S e c t i o n 93-8614, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 71-3-124 NCA,
e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p r i n c i p l e of when a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a r e r e c o v e r -
a b l e on a l i e n f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n . They a r e r e c o v e r a b l e i n
a r e a s o n a b l e amount " t o e a c h c l a i m a n t whose l i e n i s e s t a b -
l i s h e d " and " t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a g a i n s t whose p r o p e r t y a l i e n
i s c l a i m e d , i f s u c h l i e n be n o t e s t a b l i s h e d . " The s t a t u t e
makes a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s r e c o v e r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y .
I f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , a p p e l l a n t s i n t h i s c a s e , do n o t win, t h e y
a r e not e n t i t l e d t o attorney's fees.
W concur:
e
Jpstices 4