Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Central Park North, Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 4,GEORGIA-PACIFIC,4
• Citation: 394 Mich. 59,228 N.W.2d 380
• Parties: CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, and Best-Wall Gypsum Division, Assignee of Bob Ryan, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. CENTRAL PARK NORTH CO., a Michigan Co-Partnership, et al. American Casualty Company, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Hollenbeck Drywall, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Bankrupt, by William C. Maguire, Trustee in Bankruptcy, and Hollenbeck & Sather, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendants. 394 Mich. 59, 228 N.W.2d 380
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 380

228 N.W.2d 380

394 Mich. 59 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, and Best-Wall Gypsum Division Assignee of Bob Ryan, Inc., a Michigan Corporation Plaintiff- Appellant, v. CENTRAL PARK NORTH CO., a Michigan Co-Partnership, et al. American Casualty Company, a corporation Defendant-Appellee and Hollenbeck Drywall, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Bankrupt, by William C. Maguire, Trustee in Bankruptcy, and Hollenbeck & Sather, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendants.

No. 4.

394 Mich. 59, 228 N.W.2d 380

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 29, 1975.

Wells, Wilmoth, Keating & Nitz, P.C., by Patrick J. Keating, Daniel J. Henry, Jr., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Dakmak, Gropman & Sinai, P.C., by George P. Dakmak, Liberson, Fink, Feiler, Crystal & Burdick, P.C., by Jeffery L. Schmier, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

T. G. KAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

This is an action to foreclose a materialman's liens.

Central Park North Co. owns an apartment complex consisting of six interconnected apartment buildings which during construction were numbered from 1 through 6. Hollenbeck Drywall, Inc., now bankrupt, was the drywall subcontractor for the complex. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, plaintiff-appellant, sold drywall materials to Bob Ryan, Inc., a wholesaler. Bob Ryan sold and delivered drywall materials to Hollenbeck Drywall which were used in constructing the complex.

Bob Ryan began delivering materials to buildings #4 and #5 on May 26, 1965, and continued through June, 1965. Payments for those materials were made to Bob Ryan by means of promissory notes which were then assigned by Bob Ryan to Georgia-Pacific.

On June 16, 1965, Bob Ryan was notified by Georgia-Pacific that it would no longer accept Hollenbeck's promissory notes in lieu of cash. On July 12 Bob Ryan began delivering materials to building #1.

On September 9, 1965, Bob Ryan began delivering materials to building #2.

On October 3, 1965, Bob Ryan served a notice of intent to file a mechanic's lien against building #1 for the value of materials furnished to it and followed the same procedure for building #2.

On October 14, 1965, shortly after the notices of intent to claim liens were served on Central Park North, the general contractor, Hamilton Construction Company, issued a check for the sum of $4,104 made payable jointly to Hollenbeck Drywall and Bob Ryan. The purpose of the check was not designated.

Hollenbeck Drywall negotiated the check solely upon its endorsement without notice to Bob Ryan.

On February 10, 1966, mechanic's liens against buildings #1 and #2 were filed On March 24, 1966 Central Park North posted two bonds to vacate the liens resulting in the surety, American Casualty Company, becoming a co-defendant.

by Bob Ryan in accordance with M.C.L.A. § 570.5; M.S.A. § 26.285. These liens were subsequently assigned to Georgia-Pacific.

Georgia-Pacific on January 13, 1967, instituted suit to foreclose its liens.

In February, 1967, the bank that had erroneously cashed the check made payable jointly to Hollenbeck Drywall and Bob Ryan paid Bob Ryan the $4,104. Bob Ryan sent this money to Georgia- Pacific to apply to the oldest indebtedness of Hollenbeck Drywall, that is the money owed on the promissory notes held by Georgia-Pacific. Bob Ryan did not apply that money as a credit on the liens.

Judgment was entered in favor of Georgia-Pacific in the amount of $10,423.91. That amount included the lien of $3,575.22 against building #1 and the lien of $11,391.15 against building #2 minus.$438.46 ¹ for an invoice that was disallowed, and also minus the payment of $4,104.

Central Park North argues that the liens are void for two reasons: a) Bob Ryan was acting in bad faith by not reducing the amount claimed in the liens by the $4,104 paid by Hamilton Construction and by the $438.96 which the trial court disallowed; and b) the notices of intent to claim the liens were not timely served.

THE BAD FAITH ISSUE

The trial court held that the $4,104 was paid in response to a request for payment by Hollenbeck and was for materials used in buildings #1 and #2 and, therefore, should have been subtracted from the amount claimed by the liens. Accordingly, the trial court credited Central Park North with that amount and reduced the claim of $14,527.91 to a judgment of $10,423.91 plus interest.

Central Park North argues that Bob Ryan knowingly inflated the statements of accounts and liens filed on February 10, 1966, pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 570.5; M.S.A. § 26.285, and was therefore, acting in bad faith. For support Central Park North cites Gibbs v. Hanchette, 90 Mich. 657, 51 N.W. 691 (1892); J. E. Greilick Co. v. Taylor, 143 Mich. 704, 107 N.W. 712 (1906); Silverstein v. Berman, 254 Mich. 478, 236 N.W. 840 (1931); Equitable Trust Co. v. Detroit Golf & Recreation Co., 260 Mich. 606, 245 N.W. 531 (1932); Currier Lumber Co. v. Ruoff, 298 Mich. 505, 299 N.W. 163 (1941); Sacchetti v. Recreation Co., 304 Mich. 185, 7 N.W.2d 265 (1943).

Each of the cases cited involved the voiding of a lien because the statement of account was held to have been made in bad faith. In the instant case when Bob Ryan filed its statements, it had not yet received the $4,104. Thus, including it in the amount due was not inaccurate as to the $4,104 at that time.

Although Bob Ryan was in error in not subsequently reducing the amount of its claim prior to trial, the trial court considered that error and the erroneous inclusion of one invoice in reaching judgment, and thus apparently did not find Bob Ryan's errors to have been made in bad faith.

In mechanics' liens cases the question of bad faith depends to a great degree on the facts and circumstances shown. Sacchetti v. Recreation Co., 304 Mich. 185, 192, 7 N.W.2d 265 (1943). From our reading of the record, we do not find sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Bob Ryan's errors were made in bad faith so as to void the liens.

THE TIMELY NOTICE ISSUE

Section 1 of the mechanics' liens act, M.C.L.A. § 570.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 26.281 et seq. requires, Inter alia, that a materialman must serve on the owner a written notice of intent to claim a lien against a building for any amounts unpaid for the materials furnished to that building. Such notice must be served 'within 90 days after furnishing the first of such material . . .'. M.C.L.A. § 570.1; M.S.A. § 26.281.

The trial court found from the evidence before it that Bob Ryan contracted with Hollenbeck Drywall to furnish materials on an individual per building basis, that the buildings on the project were separate and divisible, and that the notices of intent to file liens against buildings #1 and #2 were timely served within 90 days of the first deliveries to those buildings. We agree with those findings of facts and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Court of Appeals after a De novo review of the record found that there was only a single contract between Bob Ryan and Hollenbeck Drywall for the furnishing of materials to a single project consisting of six separate buildings. It held that the liens were void because they were not served within 90 days of the first delivery to the project, i.e. within 90 days of the delivery of materials to buildings #4 and #5 on May 26, 1965.

As authority for the proposition that when several buildings are constructed under a single contract the project must be treated as a single improvement under the mechanics' liens act, the court cited Union Trust v. Casserly, 127 Mich. 183, 86 N.W. 545 (1901), Sandusky Grain Co. v. Borden's Condensed Milk...