Opinion ID: 2178141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court of Special Appeals' decision

Text: The decision of the circuit court was challenged, for the most part unsuccessfully, by petitioners in the Court of Special Appeals. The questions presented to that court, of which there were six, read almost verbatim to the ones brought before us in the present case. [10] We shall address only those issues we view as determinative. With respect to petitioners' assertion that the circuit court erred in granting a Final Order in that the notice of the intention to file a mechanic's lien and the complaint to establish the mechanic's lien failed to name all owners of the property in question, the intermediate appellate court held that [o]nce notice was sent to Southern Management, all remaining owners were put on notice. In reaching that conclusion, the intermediate appellate court relied on § 9-104(d) of the Real Property Article, which provides that [i]f there is more than one owner, the subcontractor may comply with this section by giving notice to any of the owners. On the issue of whether the circuit court erred in not allocating the lien among the common elements and the condominium units ... as required by ... Real Property Section 11-118, the Court of Special Appeals found that petitioners failed to present evidence that a condominium regime was ever created in accordance with Section 11-102 of the Real Property Article.. . .  Therefore, the circuit court was not required to allocate amongst the owners the proportion of their liability to [Willes Construction] (alteration added). When presented with the issue of whether the circuit court erred in entering a Final Order when the lien was not established within one year from the filing of the initial complaint, as petitioners alleged was required under § 9-109 of the Real Property Article, the Court of Special Appeals held that, because [Willes Construction's] initial complaint was a complaint seeking to establish [and enforce] a mechanic's lien, [Willes Construction] was entitled to obtain a lien until the circuit court issued a final ruling on the matter (alterations added). Petitioners' sole victory in the intermediate appellate court concerned the issue of whether there existed a genuine dispute of material fact in regard to the percentage of work completed by Willes Construction under the contract. The court found that, [b]ecause there was a dispute as to what percentage of work had actually been completed, at the relevant point, the [circuit court] should not have issued a final order of mechanic's lien (alteration added). Thereafter, the Court of Special Appeals modified the Final Order to an interlocutory order.