The November 1, 2017 case entitled C&B v. Dashiell is a good review of some basic construction law. The case began with a very familiar situation: A sub-contractor was not paid by a general contractor.
The sub-contractor had worked on six different jobs for the general contractor, but had not been fully paid. The sub sued for over $200,000. As part of the lawsuit, the sub sued the owners of the general contractor, individually.
Maryland's Construction Trust Fund Statute can impose personal liability on the owners of a general contractor where money paid on behalf of a sub-contractor's work is wrongly used. For instance, a GC might use money paid by the owner based on the subs pay application to pay down a bank line of credit, or mounting supplier accounts. The GC might direct the subs money to pay rent, the light bill, or taxes. The GC might also pay the subs money direct to individual owners to repay loans, or as salary and expense reimbursement. Just about all of this is improper.
But the sub-contractor lost on its claims against the individual owners of the GC (after taking consent judgments against the GC corporate entity). The case was lost at trial, and lost again on appeal because the sub did not put on essential proof that the trust fund statute applied to this particular situation.
The mere fact that the sub was owed over $200,000 over multiple projects did not automatically qualify the claim under the trust fund statute. The sub had to demonstrate that the work for which the money is owed either 1) arose from a public project covered by Maryland's Little Miller Act; or 2) arose from a private project for which a mechanic's lien could be taken.
Why? Because the Maryland legislature put those limitations in the trust fund statute. In cases involving private construction projects you must put on proof that the work is lienable under the mechanic's lien statute before you may sustain claims under the trust fund statute for personal liability.
The proof is not difficult-- It requires a demonstration that the total value of the project (and not just the unpaid balance sued upon) meets the percentage of value formula in the mechanic's lien statute:
Every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of 15 percent of its value is subject to establishment of a lien in accordance with this subtitle for the payment of all debts, without regard to the amount, contracted for work done for or about the building and for materials furnished for or about the building, including the drilling and installation of wells to supply water, the construction or installation of any swimming pool or fencing, the sodding, seeding or planting in or about the premises of any shrubs, trees, plants, flowers or nursery products, the grading, filling, landscaping, and paving of the premises, the provision of building or landscape architectural services, engineering services, land surveying services, or interior design services that pertain to interior construction and are provided by a certified interior designer, and the leasing of equipment, with or without an operator, for use for or about the building or premises.This requires proof. The judge cannot speculate that because the amount sued upon is large that it must fall within the 15% rule. In this case, the $200,000 sum was not sufficient proof that the sub had a lienable claim, and thus it could not demonstrate standing to make claim against the individual owners of the GC under the trust fund statute.
Your construction lawyer should know this.