Big L Corp. v. Courtland Const. Co.

757 N.W.2d 852, 482 Mich. 1090
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 12, 2008
Docket136420
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 757 N.W.2d 852 (Big L Corp. v. Courtland Const. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Big L Corp. v. Courtland Const. Co., 757 N.W.2d 852, 482 Mich. 1090 (Mich. 2008).

Opinion

757 N.W.2d 852 (2008)

BIG L CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COURTLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, David J. Ziomkowski, Mary K. Ziomkowski, Mark E. McDowell, Amanda B. McDowell, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Marvin J. Berkenpas Builder, Inc., Mid-Michigan Ceilings & Drywall, Inc., and Grand Bank Mortgage Company, Defendants, and
Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 136420. COA No. 271880.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

December 12, 2008.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals that cites Vugterveen Sys., Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp., 454 Mich. 119, 121, 560 N.W.2d 43 (1997), for the applicable rule of statutory interpretation. Although the Court of Appeals correctly stated that the Construction Lien Act (CLA) is to be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes of the act and that substantial compliance is sufficient, MCL 570.1302(1), it improperly relied on Vugterveen, rather than MCL 570.1302(1), for those rules of statutory interpretation. Big L Corp. v. *853 Courtland Constr. Co., 278 Mich.App. 438, 441, 750 N.W.2d 628 (2008). In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

CORRIGAN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in the order striking the Court of Appeals' citation of Vugterveen Sys., Inc. v. Olde Millpond Corp., 454 Mich. 119, 121, 560 N.W.2d 43 (1997), for the applicable rule of statutory interpretation. I dissent, however, because I do not think that eliminating the requirement of notarization, rendering the statement furnished by the contractor in essence a mere notice, can be "substantial compliance" under MCL 570.1110. The Legislature placed "notice" provisions and a sample notice in MCL 570.1109; it put sworn statement provisions in MCL 570.1110. In MCL 570.1110, our Legislature mentioned "sworn statement" 33 times. It provides a sample "sworn statement" and creates penalties for making false sworn statements with intent to defraud. In concluding that swearing is no longer necessary under this section, we obliterate the distinction between notice in § 1109 and "sworn statement" in § 1110 that the Legislature crafted. I do not think that either the familiar tenets of "liberal construction" or "substantial compliance" really allow us to go so far as to obliterate the carefully crafted distinctions between notices in § 1109 and sworn statements in § 1110.

The Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq., which took effect on January 1, 1982, "was intended to protect the interests of contractors, workers, and suppliers through construction liens, while protecting owners from excessive costs." Vugterveen, supra at 121, 560 N.W.2d 43. To that end, a contractor must submit a sworn statement to an owner when payment is due or demanded, identifying each subcontractor, supplier, and laborer and the amounts owed, and "the owner can rely on a sworn statement as a comprehensive list of potential lien claimants." Vugterveen, supra at 123, 560 N.W.2d 43; MCL 570.1110(1), (4). An owner or contractor may also rely on a sworn statement as a defense against a subcontractor's claim of lien, unless the subcontractor has submitted a timely notice of furnishing. Id. at 123-124, 560 N.W.2d 43; MCL 570.1110(7). The Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund was statutorily created "to provide payment to subcontractors or suppliers when a homeowner has already paid a contractor once in full for an improvement to his house but the contractor misused or misappropriated the money without first paying the supplier." Erb Lumber, Inc. v. Gidley, 234 Mich.App. 387, 391, 594 N.W.2d 81 (1999).

In this case, plaintiff subcontractor filed suit, seeking recovery from defendant Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund. The trial court granted a judgment for plaintiff, ruling that the contractor's "sworn statements," which provided notice of the identity of the subcontractors, suppliers, and laborers, and the amounts owed to each, did not substantially comply with the CLA, MCL 570.1110(4), because they were not notarized. Therefore, plaintiff's late filing of a claim of lien did not defeat its right to a lien. The Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion. Big L Corp. v. Courtland Construction Co., 278 Mich.App. 438, 750 N.W.2d 628 (2008). The panel held that the "sworn statements" substantially complied with the CLA even though they were not notarized. It observed that because the statements were signed and dated, they fulfilled the statute's "sworn statement" requirement by providing the owner with notice of the identity of the subcontractors, suppliers, *854 and laborers and the amount owed to each for materials and labor. It concluded that because the "sworn statements" substantially complied with MCL 570.1110(4), plaintiff's claim of lien for materials furnished before the date of its notice was defeated because the notice was untimely. Big L, supra at 444-445, 750 N.W.2d 628.

In ruling that an unsworn statement was not in substantial compliance with MCL 570.1110, the trial court properly looked to the statutory language itself. It compared MCL 570.1110, which requires contractors and subcontractors to furnish a "sworn statement," under certain circumstances, with MCL 570.1109, which governs the requirement of subcontractors and laborers to provide a "notice of furnishing." MCL 570.1110 provides, in part:

(1) A contractor shall provide a sworn statement to the owner or lessee in each of the following circumstances:
(a) When payment is due to the contractor from the owner or lessee or when the contractor requests payment from the owner or lessee.
(b) When a demand for the sworn statement has been made by or on behalf of the owner or lessee.
(2) A subcontractor shall provide a sworn statement to the owner or lessee when a demand for the sworn statement has been made by or on behalf of the owner or lessee and, if applicable, the owner or lessee has complied with the requirements of subsection (6).
(3) A subcontractor shall provide a sworn statement to the contractor when payment is due to the subcontractor from the contractor or when the subcontractor requests payment from the contractor.
(4) A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

C D Barnes Associates Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC
834 N.W.2d 878 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2013)
Coleman v. Department of Corrections
757 N.W.2d 852 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
757 N.W.2d 852, 482 Mich. 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/big-l-corp-v-courtland-const-co-mich-2008.