Court Opinion

ID: 9616376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:46:06.374207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:57.716774
License: Public Domain

*424Judge Greene
dissenting.
I reject the view that the contractor, who had no contractual relationship with the lender, has an equitable lien against monies not disbursed by the lender to the owner. No North Carolina cases establish such a cause of action for the plaintiff, and the better reasoned view in my opinion requires rejection of such an equitable lien. Our Legislature has provided for liens to protect builders (N.C.G.S. § 44A-7 et seq. (1989)), and I perceive no good reason for the courts to judicially legislate additional security for the builder. See 51 Am.Jur. 2d Liens § 24, at 163 (1970) (“there must be some ground for equitable intervention, including the absence of an adequate remedy at law”); see also R. M. Shoemaker Co. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Economic Development Corp., 419 A.2d 60 (1980); Pratt Lumber Co. v. T. H. Gill, 278 F. 783, 789-90 (E.D.N.C. 1922).
The plaintiff argues that “the gravamen of the equitable lien claim ... is equity’s abhorrence for the unjust enrichment of a lender at the expense of the performing contractor who relied on the loan proceeds for payment.” I fail to see the unjust enrichment which theoretically accrues to a creditor since the creditor possesses an interest only to the extent of the amount actually disbursed. Any value of the building in excess of that amount, presumably the value added by the contractor for which the contractor was not paid, cannot be considered a windfall for the creditor since the creditor has no interest in that value.
Regarding the tortious interference with contract claim against defendants Tedesco and Occhino, the fourth element of that cause of action requires that the defendants acted without justification. As the majority notes, an officer or director of a corporation acts without justification, such that individual liability can be imposed, only where “his acts are performed in his own interest and adverse to that of his firm” (emphasis added). Here the plaintiff failed to allege that these defendants’ acts were adverse to that of their firm, Rafcor, Inc. Therefore, the pleadings here fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for interference with contract.
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint against United Carolina Bank, Tedesco and Occhino.