C & B Construction, Inc. v. Dashiell
172 A.3d 960
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Subcontractor C & B performed work on six Maryland construction projects for general contractor Temco and alleges Temco was paid by owners but failed to pay C & B for work totaling about $218,350.
- C & B sued Temco and Temco officers Jeffrey Dashiell and Edward Maguire individually under Maryland’s Construction Trust Statute (RP § 9-201 et seq.), alleging officers knowingly misused trust funds paid for C & B’s work.
- Temco consented to a judgment admitting it owed C & B; claims against the officers proceeded to bench trial.
- After C & B rested, the trial court granted officers’ motion for judgment, holding RP § 9-204(a) requires proof that the contracts were subject to either the Maryland Little Miller Act or the mechanics’ lien statute (RP § 9-102), which C & B did not prove.
- The Court of Special Appeals reviewed statutory construction de novo and affirmed, holding the Construction Trust statute applies only where the Little Miller Act or mechanics’ lien statute applies; because C & B failed to establish that, officers could not be held personally liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RP § 9-204(a) limits the Construction Trust statute to contracts subject to the Little Miller Act or the mechanics’ lien statute | C & B: § 9-204(a) is not limiting; it merely preserves remedies where other statutes also apply, so § 9-202 applies to all subcontract work for or about a building | Dashiell/Maguire: § 9-204(a) is an applicability clause that confines the subtitle to contracts subject to the Little Miller Act or RP § 9-102 | Held: § 9-204(a) limits the subtitle; the Construction Trust statute applies only to contracts subject to the Little Miller Act or the mechanics’ lien statute |
| Whether C & B proved alternative elements (earmarking of funds) to hold officers liable under § 9-202 | C & B: testimony and evidence showed owners paid Temco for C & B’s work and officers used those funds for other purposes | Officers: even if funds were paid, statute inapplicable absent mechanics’ lien/Little Miller Act coverage; trial court need not reach earmarking | Held: Court did not reach merits of earmarking because C & B failed to establish the statute’s applicability; judgment for officers affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson Trenching v. Kiehne, 329 Md. 169 (1993) (describing purpose of Construction Trust statute and officer liability)
- Winkler Constr. Co. v. Jerome, 355 Md. 231 (1999) (mechanic’s lien is statutory and available only where statute’s requirements are met)
- Freeform Pools, Inc. v. Strawbridge Home for Boys, 228 Md. 297 (1962) (legislative history expanding lienable structures under mechanics’ lien law)
- Aviles v. Eshelman Elec. Corp., 281 Md. 529 (1977) (mechanic’s lien is a creature of statute and obtainable only if statutory requirements complied with)
- Nesbit v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65 (2004) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Jaguar Techs., Inc. v. Cable–La, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D. Md. 2002) (holding Construction Trust Statute limited to property subject to § 9-102 and contracts subject to Little Miller Act)