Opinion ID: 2299055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: managing project

Text: 3. PD, Ltd. will provide Scott and Gail Fosler with a financial Construction Management Report on the 1st and 15th of each month during the construction of your project. This report will outline Scott and Gail Fosler's financial expenditures for construction to date. 4. PD, Ltd. will secure all subcontractors lien-release forms if required. In exchange, the Foslers agreed to pay to Panoramic a fee of twenty percent of the cost of materials and labor. Panoramic earned additional income based on a twenty percent mark-up of all procured materials. Early in 1999, the Foslers became dissatisfied with Panoramic's work. As a result, on March 16, 1999, the Foslers filed the present declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Their complaint sought a declaration that the services provided to them by Panoramic under the contract constituted a home improvement within the meaning of the Maryland Home Improvement Law, Maryland Code (1992, 1998 Repl.Vol., 2002 Supp.), § 8-101 et seq. of the Business Regulation Article. [1] They also sought a declaration that the contract was unenforceable under this Court's holding in Harry Berenter, Inc. v. Berman, 258 Md. 290, 265 A.2d 759 (1970), on the grounds that Panoramic was required to have a license from the Maryland Home Improvement Commission, but did not have such a license, when it performed home improvement services for the Foslers. As previously mentioned, the Foslers also filed a complaint with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission on May 25, 1999. Similarly, this complaint claimed that Panoramic was performing home improvement work without a license, in violation of the Maryland Home Improvement Law. The Commission submitted the complaint to its Legal Services Division to determine whether administrative charges should be issued against Panoramic. Finally, the Foslers filed a complaint with the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs. In that action, the Foslers alleged that Panoramic committed a deceptive practice in violation of the County's consumer protection laws by performing home improvement work without a license. On August 24, 1999, an investigator from the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs sent a letter to the state investigator assigned to the Maryland Home Improvement Commission complaint, stating in relevant part as follows: Enclosed is a copy of the court notice setting trial in this matter for October 26, 1999. The charge is whether Panoramic committed a deceptive practice in violation of the county's consumer protection laws by doing home improvement work without a license. It would be helpful to have the MHIC [Maryland Home Improvement Commission] opinion on the issue of whether Panoramic needed a license by then, as the court would give it great weight. One month later, however, the Maryland Home Improvement Commission advised the Foslers that this agency will take no action on the complaint until final resolution of the court actions against Panoramic. [2] Subsequently, Panoramic filed a motion to dismiss the Foslers' declaratory judgment action, asserting that [t]he Maryland Legislature has determined that the sole and exclusive avenue for determining whether a contractor is a `home improvement contractor,' lies with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission. As such, the Declaratory Judgment Action is an inappropriate and unavailable remedy. Panoramic also relied on the fact that the Home Improvement Statute contains no provision authorizing a private cause of action by a homeowner against a person or firm that is alleged to be a home improvement contractor. Alternatively, Panoramic argued that, when a statutory scheme includes both administrative proceedings and provisions for judicial review of the administrative decision, this is such a scheme that requires the parties to exhaust the administrative remedies prior to recourse to the courts. Thus, Panoramic maintained that the declaratory action was improper, since the Foslers had failed ... to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Foslers responded by arguing, inter alia, that [e]ven assuming, arguendo, Panoramic's position relative to administrative exhaustion has some merit, the Foslers filed a complaint with the MHIC [Maryland Home Improvement Commission] and have been advised by the MHIC that MHIC on its own initiative has stayed any action on the Foslers' complaint pending `completion of litigation.'    Accordingly, any argument that the Foslers have failed to exhaust their remedies before the MHIC is without merit. The Foslers have done everything they could do to obtain a determination from MHIC on their complaint against Panoramic. It is the MHIC, and not the Foslers, that has decided to await the outcome of the various court actions and take no administrative action on the Foslers' complaint. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court denied Panoramic's motion to dismiss. The Foslers then filed a motion for summary judgment, which was also denied by the Circuit Court. A three-day trial before a jury ensued. At the conclusion of the trial, the court discharged the jury, holding, inter alia, that there were no disputed facts for the jury to consider which could resolve the issue of whether Panoramic was acting as a contractor or as a consultant. The Circuit Court then filed a judgment declaring that Panoramic performed home improvement contractor services for the Foslers within the meaning of the Maryland Home Improvement statute, that Panoramic ... was required to have a license issued by the Maryland Home Improvement Commission, that Panoramic ... performed [the] home improvement contractor services for plaintiffs... without a license issued by the Maryland Home Improvement Commission, and that, consequently, the contract was unenforceable under Maryland law. Panoramic appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The intermediate appellate court reversed the order of the Circuit Court and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the issue of whether Panoramic was a general contractor or a consultant was for the jury. The Foslers then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, Fosler v. Panoramic, 365 Md. 472, 781 A.2d 778 (2001).