Bedford v. Sussex Elec. Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 January 1978
• Citation: 382 A.2d 246
• Parties: Boyce H. BEDFORD and Florence S. Bedford, his wife, Defendants below, Appellants, v. SUSSEX ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff below, Appellee. Boyce H. BEDFORD and Florence S. Bedford, his wife, Defendants below, appellants, v. MASTEN LUMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff below, Appellee. Boyce H. BEDFORD and Florence S. Bedford, his wife, Defendants below, Appellants, v. McGEE PLUMBING & HEATING CO., INC., Plaintiff below, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 246

382 A.2d 246

Boyce H. BEDFORD and Florence S. Bedford, his wife, Defendants below, Appellants, v. SUSSEX ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff below, Appellee.

Boyce H. BEDFORD and Florence S. Bedford, his wife, Defendants below, appellants, v. MASTEN LUMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff below, Appellee.

Boyce H. BEDFORD and Florence S. Bedford, his wife, Defendants below, Appellants, v. McGEE PLUMBING & HEATING CO., INC., Plaintiff below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted Nov. 21, 1977.

Decided Jan. 18, 1978.

Upon appeal from Superior Court. Reversed.

John E. Henriksen, of Maull & Maull, P. A., Georgetown, for all defendants-appellants.

Harold E. Dukes, Jr., of Dunlap, Holland & Eberly, Georgetown, for plaintiff-appellee Sussex Elec. Const. Co.

John E. Messick and Michael J. Rich, of Tunnell & Raysor, Georgetown, for plaintiff-appellee Masten Lumber & Supply Co., Inc.

H. Clay Davis, III, of Davis & Marshall, Georgetown, for plaintiff-appellee McGee Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc.

Before HERRMANN, C. J., DUFFY and McNEILLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

These are consolidated cases which require the Court to construe, for the first time, a 1971 amendment to the Mechanics' Lien Statute, 25 Del.C. § 2707.

With the amendment, the Statute reads as follows:

"No lien shall be obtained under this chapter upon the lands, structure, or both, of any owner which is used solely as a residence of said owner when the owner has made either full or final payment to the contractor, in good faith, with whom he contracted for the construction, erection, building, improvement, alteration or repair thereof. Prior to or simultaneous with the receipt of any full or final payment by the contractor, the contractor must provide the owner either (1) a notarized, verified written certification that the contractor has paid in full for all labor performed and materials furnished to the date of such full or final payment in or for such construction, erection, building, improvement, alteration or repair or (2) a written release of mechanics' liens signed by all persons who would otherwise be entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of this chapter, containing a notarized, verified certification signed by the contractor that all of the persons signing the release constitute all of the persons who have furnished materials and performed labor in and for the construction, erection, building, improvement, alteration and repair to the date of the release and who would be entitled otherwise to file mechanics' liens claims. Failure of the contractor to provide the owner a written certification or a release of mechanics' liens at such time shall constitute sufficient cause for the immediate suspension, revocation or cancellation of the contractor's occupational and business licenses. If the owner has not made full payment in good faith to such contractor, the lien may be obtained in accordance with this chapter, but it shall be a lien only to the extent of the balance of the payment due such contractor, which balance or portion shall be payable pro rata among the claimants who perfect liens. Payments made to the contractor by the owner after service of process, as provided in § 2715 of this title, shall not be deemed to be 'in good faith.' "

Briefly, the Act exempts from the lien law owner-occupied residential property when the owner has made "full or final payment . . . in good faith" to the contractor. The issue in these cases centers on the "good faith" requirement which an owner must meet to get the benefit of § 2707.

Relying on an unreported decision in Cassidy Company v. CCA Associates, Inc., and Sisler, Del.Super., C.A. No. 417, 1973 (1975), the Superior Court granted plaintiffs (each...