Harrison v. Stouffer

• Decision Date: 27 April 1949
• Docket Number: 140.
• Citation: 65 A.2d 895,193 Md. 46
• Parties: HARRISON v. STOUFFER et ux.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

65 A.2d 895

193 Md. 46

HARRISON v. STOUFFER et ux.

No. 140.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 27, 1949

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Joseph D. Mish, Chief Judge.

Suit by Lewis Franklin Harrison against George C. Stouffer and Velva F. Stouffer, his wife, to enforce a mechanic's lien. From decree dismissing bill of complaint, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

George N. Oswald and Edward Oswald, Jr., both of Hagerstown, for appellant.

Lane Bushong & Byron and Irvine H. Rutledge, all of Hagerstown and Julius G. Maurer, of Baltimore, for appellees.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE Judge.

This suit in equity was instituted in the Circuit Court for Washington County by Lewis Franklin Harrison, a building contractor, to enforce a mechanics' lien against the real property owned by George C. Stouffer and his wife at 927 Spruce Street in Hagerstown. Complainant alleged that he furnished all the labor and materials for the construction of the frame bungalow on defendants' lot, but the Court held that the lien was void, because it was not filed within the time allowed by the statute. Complainant has appealed here from the decree dismissing his bill of complaint.

In the building contract dated July 10, 1947, the contractor agreed to provide the labor and materials, and the owners agreed to pay him 'on the completion or termination of work' for labor at the existing wage scale and the cost of materials furnished plus ten per cent of the cost for supervision. While the contract did not demand any payments prior to the completion of the work, the contractor mailed to the owners his first statement for $2,509.69 on September 4, and that amount was paid on September 12. On October 4 he mailed his second statement for $2,376.96, on which the owners paid $1,950, leaving a balance due of $426.90. On January 10, 1948, the contractor sent his final statement for $5,035.62. Soon afterwards Stouffer, who was a railroad employee, informed the contractor that he feared he might not be able to keep his job on account of diabetes, and that it would be a relief to him to sell the property. In April, before the Stouffers vacated the house and moved to Baltimore, the contractor promised to list the property for sale with a real estate agent. He also agreed to wait for settlement until June.

On July 9, 1948, the contractor wrote to Stouffer: 'You will recall that I agreed to wait the month of June, 1948, for some developments on the Spruce Street property. Inasmuch as this time has passed and no arrangements have been made to dispose of the property, I must insist that you take immediate steps to secure funds with which to pay me the amount I have involved in the property. I shall wait until July 28, 1948, before taking any further action in the matter.' On July 30 an attorney for the owners replied from Baltimore that they were disappointed with the house and, after specifying twelve things which were 'not done' or 'improperly performed,' made an offer of $2,196.31 to compromise the claim. The contractor, replying to Stouffer on July 31, rejected the offer and demanded payment of the balance of $5,035.62, with interest at five per cent from January 10, 1948. He also warned Stouffer that he had only five days in which to make settlement before the account would be filed in court. But instead of filing his claim at the end of five days, as he had threatened, he went to the house on August 10, after borrowing the key from Stouffer's father, and fastened a sash-lock at one of the windows and a 4-foot toestrip along the baseboard in one of the rooms. On August 13 he filed his claim for mechanics' lien, alleging that he worked in the house on August 10 for one hour and a half. The total claim, including $2.77 for labor performed and materials furnished on August 10, is $5,038.39.

The Mechanics' Lien Law, as amended by the Legislature of Maryland in 1943, declares that every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt or improved to the extent of one-fourth its value in any of the counties shall be subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for work done and materials furnished for or about the same. Laws of 1943, ch. 982, Code Supp. 1947, art. 63, sec. 1; House v. Fissell, Md., 51 A.2d 669. The statute definitely declares the time within which the claim of lien must be filed in order to preserve the lien. This provision is as follows: 'Every such debt shall be a lien until after the expiration of six months after the work has been finished or the materials furnished, although no claim has been filed therefor, but no longer, unless a claim shall be filed at or before the expiration of that period.' Code 1939, art. 63, sec. 23. It is plain that the words 'the work has been finished,' as used in Section 23 of the Mechanics' Lien Law, refer alone to work for which a lien may be taken, and are not to be considered as synonymous with the completion of the building upon which the work was done. Trustees of German Lutheran Evangelical St. Matthew's Congregation v. Heise, 44 Md. 453, 475.

It is generally accepted that where, even after a contract...