Westpointe Plaza II Ltd. Partnership v. Kalkreuth Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc.

Decision Date01 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. 816,816
Citation109 Md.App. 569,675 A.2d 571
PartiesWESTPOINTE PLAZA II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. KALKREUTH ROOFING & SHEET METAL, INC. ,
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
Glenn C. Etelson (Conroy, Ballman & Dameron, on the brief), Gaithersburg, for appellant

Matthew B. Ruble, Frederick, for appellee.

Argued before MOYLAN, FISCHER and CATHELL, JJ.

FISCHER, Judge.

Westpointe Plaza II Limited Partnership (Westpointe) appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Frederick County that granted Kalkreuth Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc.'s (Kalkreuth) motion to establish and enforce a mechanics' lien against Westpointe. The circuit court granted Kalkreuth's motion after Westpointe failed to obey the court's Show Cause Order directing Westpointe to file a counter-affidavit or verified answer detailing why the circuit court should not grant Kalkreuth's motion. Following the circuit court's decision, Westpointe filed a "Motion to Dismiss" and a "Motion to Reconsider, Vacate, or Strike the Final Order," which the circuit court denied. From the questions raised in the parties' briefs, we address the following issue:

I. Did the circuit court err by granting Kalkreuth's motion for a mechanics' lien?

FACTS

Kalkreuth is a West Virginia corporation that operates a roofing and sheet metal construction business. Westpointe owns the Westpointe Shopping Plaza, which is located in Frederick, Maryland. Included in the shopping plaza is a Burger King restaurant.

Core Development Group, Inc. (Core) contracted with Westpointe to do repair work on the stores in the shopping plaza. Kalkreuth, in turn, subcontracted with Core to supply the labor and materials for the re-roofing of the Burger King and plaza itself. The contract stated that the re-roofing of the Burger King would cost $20,600. 1

[675 A.2d 573] Kalkreuth worked on the Burger King from September 14, 1993 to June 15, 1994. Upon completion of the project, Kalkreuth requested payment of the $20,600. Westpointe refused to pay Kalkreuth because it alleged that Kalkreuth's work was deficient.

On November 30, 1994, Kalkreuth filed a petition to establish and enforce a mechanics' lien against Westpointe in the circuit court. 2 The petition included the identity of the Burger King that Kalkreuth wished to assert the lien against, the location and description of the Burger King, a statement as to the work done and materials supplied, a letter of agreement between the parties, an invoice establishing the costs of repairs as $20,600, and an affidavit from Kalkreuth's Executive Vice-President in support of the complaint.

On December 1, 1994, the circuit court ordered Westpointe to file either a counter-affidavit or a verified answer. The circuit court order mandated that the answer be filed by December 30, 1994. The court also scheduled a hearing for

January 13, 1995. Westpointe did not file the answer by December 30, 1994. On the day of the hearing, the circuit court informed Westpointe that the hearing had to be continued because Kalkreuth's counsel's wife was due to give birth

On January 23, 1995, the circuit court, without conducting a hearing, signed the "Final Order Establishing the Mechanics' Lien." On January 25, 1995, Westpointe filed a "Motion to Dismiss" and a "Motion to Reconsider, Vacate, or Strike Final Order." On April 10, 1995, the circuit court held a hearing on Westpointe's motions. The circuit court concluded that Westpointe waived its right to a hearing by not filing the required answer by December 30, 1994. The circuit court then rejected Westpointe's motions. Subsequently, Westpointe filed a timely appeal with this Court to contest the order establishing the mechanics' lien.

RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

The foremost goal of statutory construction is to discern the legislature's intent and the primary source of this intent is the words of the statute itself. E.g., Comptroller v. Jameson, 332 Md. 723, 732, 633 A.2d 93 (1993). The words of the statute are accorded their ordinary meaning unless otherwise specified. E.g., Atkinson v. State, 331 Md. 199, 215, 627 A.2d 1019 (1993). As a matter of course, when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to explore the universe of legislative history, or employ other extrinsic aids of construction, in order to ascertain the legislature's intent. E.g., Montgomery County v. Buckman, 333 Md. 516, 523, 636 A.2d 448 (1994).

BACKGROUND

Mechanics' liens are governed by both the Md.Code (1974, 1996 Repl Vol.), §§ 9-101 to 204 of the Real Property Article 3 and Md. Rules BG70-73. National Glass, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Prop. Inc., 329 Md. 300, 302 n. 2, 619 A.2d 528 (1993). A party initiates a mechanics' lien proceeding by filing a petition with the circuit court in the county where the property lies. Md.Code, RP § 9-106(a)(1); Md. Rule BG71(a) & (b). 4 This petition must include, inter alia, "facts upon which the petitioner claims he is entitled to the lien" and all materials serving as the basis of the lien unless their absence is explained in a filed affidavit. Md.Code, RP § 9-105(a)(2); Md. Rule BG71(b)(vi). If the circuit court finds that there is a proper ground for the lien to attach, it then orders the defendant-owner to show cause why the court should not proceed and grant the lien. Md.Code, RP § 9-106(a); Md. Rule BG73(a).

Once the circuit court issues the show cause order, one of two scenarios can occur. If the owner files its answer to the show cause order, thus raising a matter of dispute as to a material fact, the court must conduct a hearing before issuing a final order. Md.Code, RP § 9-106(a)(3); Md. Rule BG73(c). If, however, the owner does not answer the show cause order, as in the case sub judice, the court may issue a final order without a hearing, as long as the facts in the claimant's petition are legally sufficient to establish a mechanics' lien. Md.Code, RP § 9-106(a)(1)(ii); Md. Rule BG73(c). The failure to file the answer to the show cause order "shall constitute an admission for the purpose of the proceedings of all statements of fact in the affidavit supporting the petitioner's claim...." Md.Code, RP 9-106(a)(2); Md. Rule BG73(b).

Westpointe argues in its brief that it was entitled to a hearing in order to present its argument, even though it did not file the answer. Specifically, Westpointe argues that Md.Code, RP 9-106(a)(1) gives a party the option of either filing the answer or appearing at a hearing. Kalkreuth, on the other hand, argues that Md. Rule BG73(a) establishes that the filing of the answer is a prerequisite for a hearing.

Westpointe's position is undermined by two separate arguments. First, section 9-106(a)(2) requires that "[i]f the owner desires to controvert any statement of fact contained in the affidavit supporting the petitioner's claim, he must file an affidavit in support of his answer showing cause." Additionally, the Committee note in Rule BG73 states that "this Rule renders impermissible an oral response to a Show Cause Order previously permitted by Md.Code (1974, 1978 Cum.Supp.), § 9-106(a)(1)(i) of the Real Property Article." Accordingly, both arguments dictate that Westpointe had an obligation to file the answer in order to receive a hearing.

Thus, the circuit court has three options with respect to issuing a final order. The circuit court can enter: (1) a final order establishing the lien as a matter of law, Md.Code, RP § 9-106(b)(1); Md. Rule BG73(d)(1)(a); (2) a final order denying the lien if the petitioner fails to establish his right to a lien as a matter of law, Md.Code, RP 9-106(b)(2); Md. Rule BG73(d)(1)(b); or (3) an interlocutory order establishing the lien and then set the matter for trial within six months, Md.Code, RP § 9-106(b)(3); Md. Rule BG73(d)(2). 5

DISCUSSION

Westpointe argues that the circuit court erred by granting Kalkreuth's petition for a mechanics' lien because Kalkreuth did not meet the statutory requirements outlined in section 9-102(a). Kalkreuth counters that it complied with the filing requirements and that Westpointe waived its right to assert the section 9-102(a) argument because it did not file an answer to the show cause order by December 30, 1994.

I.

In its brief, Westpointe argues that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the mechanics' lien. Specifically, Westpointe contends that the facts were not legally sufficient to establish a mechanics' lien, therefore the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to award the lien.

Westpointe's jurisdictional argument, however, is misplaced. "[J]urisdiction refers to two quite distinct concepts: (i) the power of a court to render a valid decree, and (ii) the propriety of granting the relief sought." Moore v. McAllister, 216 Md. 497, 507, 141 A.2d 176 (1958) (quoting 1 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §§ 129-131 (5th ed. 1941)) (emphasis in original). Additionally, "[i]t is only when the court lacks the power to render a decree, for example ... because the court is without authority to pass upon the subject matter involved in the dispute, that its decree is void." First Federated Com. v. Comm'r, 272 Md. 329, 334, 322 A.2d 539 (1974).

Maryland law specifically provides that circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear mechanics' lien cases. Md.Code, RP 9-105(a); Tyson v. Masten Lumber & Supply, Inc. 44 Md.App. 293, 296, 408 A.2d 1051 (1979), cert. denied, 287 Md. 758 (1980). Therefore, the issue in this case is substantive, not jurisdictional, and our focus is whether the circuit court properly exercised its power in awarding the mechanics' lien for Kalkreuth.

II.

A circuit court judge must follow a two-step process in awarding a mechanics' lien. First, the circuit court judge has to determine whether there is a factual dispute. Second, the judge has to determine whether the facts as resolved entitled the claimant to the lien as a matter of law.

In the instant case, Kalkreuth and the circuit court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT