Burns v. a Cash Construction Lien Bond

¶ 1 Gordon and Sean Burns (the Burnses) appeal the judgment and order of the First Judicial District Court.

¶2 We affirm.

¶3 We restate the issues as follows:

¶4 1. Whether the District Court erred in determining that Gordon and Sean Burns did not have valid construction hens.

¶5 2. Whether Respondent waived the defense of timeliness by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense.

Standard of Review

¶6 We review findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. See Interstate Production Credit v. DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 323, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287. We review conclusions of law…