Reminder: Lien Rights are Limited
Under Washington law, “any person furnishing labor, professional services, materials, or equipment for the improvement of real property shall have a lien upon the improvement for the contract price of labor, professional services, materials, or equipment furnished at the instance of the owner, or the agent or construction agent of the owner.” RCW 60.04.021. Filing a lien against real property is a valuable tool that can lead to payment for sums the person or entity filing the lien is owed and would not have otherwise received. However, lien rights are limited. A recent decision from Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, Riordan v. Vogt, No. 40995-3-III, 2026 Wash. App. LEXIS 1086 (Ct. App. May 14, 2026) serves as a reminder that lien rights are not available for every service connected to real property.
In Riordan, a homeowner wanted to improve his property before selling. To that end, he agreed to have a friend, Mr. Vogt, repair a deck on the property. Mr. Vogt’s wife, an interior designer who sometimes conducted business through an LLC called “1 Fine Lady LLC,” helped prepare the property for display and sale by performing miscellaneous tasks related to staging the property for sale. A written contract between Riordan and Ms. Vogt, d/b/a “1 Fine Lady LLC” allegedly existed, pursuant to which Riordan allegedly agreed to pay Ms. Vogt at least $12,000.
After a dispute arose regarding payment, the Vogts filed a Claim of Lien against Riordan’s property. Riordan disputed validity of the lien and filed a complaint, alleging that the lien was frivolous. The Vogts conceded that Mr. Vogt had no right to enforce the lien because he was not a registered contractor and did not provide requisite statutory notice. However, the Vogts maintained that the lien was valid with respect to work Ms. Vogt performed. Specifically, Ms. Vogt argued that the lien was only for her design services and the cost of supplies she purchased at Riordan’s request.
The trial court concluded that Ms. Vogt was not a proper lien claimant because the only contract that existed was between Riordan and 1 Fine Lady LLC. Therefore, the trial court entered an order releasing the lien and awarding Riordan his attorneys’ fees and costs.
Division III affirmed the trial court’s decision, but on different grounds. The court focused on whether the work Ms. Vogt performed (whether individually or through 1 Fine Lady LLC) qualified as “professional services…for the improvement of real property.” By statute, “professional services” means “surveying, establishing or marking the boundaries of, preparing maps, plans, or specifications for, or inspecting, testing, or otherwise performing any other architectural or engineering services for the improvement of real property.” RCW 60.04.011(13). The court concluded that work consisting of cleaning, organizing, removing junk, packing and storing items, and assisting with selecting paint colors, did not qualify as “professional services,” nor did such work qualify as an “improvement” to real property. Therefore, the court agreed with the trial court that the lien was frivolous and awarded Riordan his attorneys’ fees.
Riordan reinforces that just because work is performed at the request of the owner of real property does not mean a lien is available. Considering the harsh consequences that come with filing a frivolous lien, it is worthwhile to consult with an attorney with a good grasp of lien rights before filing a lien. The lawyers at Beresford Booth have great experience counseling clients on lien rights and welcome the opportunity to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact Beresford Booth at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.