Brian J. Peterson, Respondent, vs. Lee Miller, Appellant.

Brian J. Peterson, Respondent, vs. Lee Miller, Appellant. A05-1055, Court of Appeals Unpublished, May 16, 2006.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A05-1055

 

Brian J. Peterson,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Lee Miller,

Appellant.

 

Filed May 16, 2006

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

 

Crow Wing County District Court

File No. C3-03-1646

 

Brian J. Peterson, 6445 Baycliffe Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331 (pro se respondent)

 

Mark E. Fuller, Mark Fuller & Associates, Ltd., 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 325, Edina, MN 55439 (for appellant)

 

            Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Willis, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

KALITOWSKI, Judge

            In this attorney's-lien-foreclosure action, the district court granted respondent two liens for attorney fees against appellant Lee Miller's property.  Appellant argues that the statute of limitations bars respondent's attempts to establish and foreclose attorney's liens.  We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

            The construction and applicability of a statute of limitations is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.  Benigni v. County of St. Louis, 585 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Minn. 1998).  Minn. Stat. § 481.13 governs the establishment and enforcement of attorney's liens.  Minn. Stat. § 481.13 (2004).  Prior to 2002, that statute did not include a statute of limitations provision.  See Minn. Stat. § 481.13 (2000).  In 2002, the Minnesota legislature amended the statute to read:

No lien against real property shall be enforced unless the lienholder, by filing either a complaint or an answer with the court administrator, asserts a lien within one year after the filing of the notice of intention to claim a lien, unless within the one-year time period the owner has agreed to a longer time period to assert the lien . . . .  In no event may the lien be asserted more than three years after filing.  No person is bound by any judgment in the action unless made a party to the action within the time limit.

 

Minn. Stat. § 481.13, subd. 3 (2004) (emphasis added) (as amended 2002).  

            In addition, the session laws prescribed the effective date for the amendment:

This section is effective August 1, 2002, and applies to a notice of intention to claim a lien filed on or after that date.  Subdivision 3 of this section applies to notices of intention to claim a lien filed prior to August 1, 2002.  These liens expire on August 1, 2003, unless prior to August 1, 2003, the lienholder complies with the provisions of subdivision 3 by filing either a complaint or an answer with the court administrator and filing with the county recorder or registrar of titles, where appropriate, a notice of lis pendens of the action.

 

2002 Minn. Laws ch. 403, § 2, at 1708-09 (emphasis added). 

            Here, respondent filed notices of attorney's liens in 1991 and 1994.  He then commenced an action to foreclose on the liens in July 2003, a month before the liens would expire under Minn. Stat. § 481.13, subd. 3.  Appellant contends that respondent's claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1 (2004).  We disagree.

            First, the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 481.13 and the session laws as enacted in 2002 provide a statute of limitations for attorney's-lien actions.  If an attorney filed a notice of attorney's lien before August 1, 2002, that attorney had until August 1, 2003, to file a complaint or an answer.  2002 Minn. Laws ch. 403, § 2, at 1708-09.  If an attorney files a notice of attorney's lien after August 1, 2002, that attorney has one year to file a complaint or an answer.  Minn. Stat. § 481.13 (2004).

            Second, the legislature's combined actions of enacting a statute of limitations for attorney's liens and implementing an expiration date for outstanding but unenforced attorney's liens indicates that no previous statute of limitations existed.  It is reasonable to conclude that by amending Minn. Stat. § 481.13, the legislature was attempting to remedy a problem of outstanding attorney's liens.

            Finally, Minnesota Title Standard No. 107 (Title Standard No. 107) is consistent with the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 481.13.  Before the Minnesota legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 481.13 in 2002, Title Standard No. 107 provided that "[a]n examiner may disregard a recorded Notice of Attorney's Lien when 10 years have elapsed since the notice was filed."  Minn. State Bar Ass'n, Minnesota Standards for Title Examinations Standard No. 107 (11th ed. 1997) (emphasis added).  Thus, under the standard, once a party filed a notice of attorney's lien, the party had at least ten years to enforce the lien.  Id.  After ten years, examiners could disregard the notice, but were not required to do so.  See id.  When the legislature adopted the 2002 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 481.13, the Minnesota Bar revised Title Standard No. 107 to reflect the one-year statute of limitations for attorney's-lien claims.  Minn. State Bar Ass'n, Minnesota Standards for Title Examinations Standard No. 107 (12th ed. 2003).  Although Title Standard No. 107 is not precedential authority, we note that, for the purposes of this case, it is consistent with our interpretation of the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 481.13.

            In conclusion, because respondent filed a complaint to enforce the notices of attorney's liens before August 1, 2003, respondent's attorney's-lien claims did not expire under the attorney's-lien statute of limitations.  Therefore, the district court did not err in hearing the case on the merits and deciding in favor of respondent.   

            Affirmed.