Court Opinion

ID: 9693685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:57:04.134974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:49.400185
License: Public Domain

BELL, C.J.,
dissents.
Dissenting Opinion by BELL, C.J.
I disagree with the majority. The appellants, Leland C. Brendsel and his wife, B. Diane Brendsel, entered into a contract with the appellee, Winchester Construction Company, Inc., pursuant to which the appellee, as “Contractor,” undertook the renovation of an historic plantation house, which the appellants owned. In that contract, the parties agreed how, and in what forum, disputes between them with respect to the contract would be handled. Pertinent in that regard, Section 15.8 of the General Conditions of the contract provides:
“All claims or disputes between the Contractor and the Owner arising out of or relating to the Contract documents, *621or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect unless the parties mutually agree otherwise and subject to an initial presentation of the claim or dispute to the Architect as required under paragraph 15.5.”
As that provision evidences, the parties agreed that the preferred, and indeed, exclusive, dispute resolution method was arbitration. See Crown Oil and Wax Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Glen Const. Co. of Virginia, Inc., 320 Md. 546, 578 A.2d 1184 (1990) (holding that the intention of the parties controls on whether there is an agreement to arbitrate, but, where the parties use a broad, all encompassing clause, it is presumed that they intended all matters to be arbitrated). The contract makes no exceptions to this preference, not even for provisional or ancillary remedies, the purpose of which, ostensibly, are to preserve the status quo in order to avoid the undermining of the parties’ preference, to insure, in short, that arbitration will be able to be used meaningfully.1
Subject to the execution of the contract, a dispute developed regarding the proper amount of fees and overhead costs to be paid to Winchester. Rather than pursuing arbitration, as the contract required, Winchester filed an action in the Circuit *622Court for Queen Anne’s County to establish a mechanic’s lien. It did so, we are told, in the words of the majority opinion, 392 Md. at 606-07, 898 A.2d at 475 (2006), because Winchester was “[cjoncerned that the statutory time for filing a petition for mechanics’ lien was (1) getting close, and (2) might be regarded as jurisdictional or preclusive in nature, rather than as a mere statute of limitations that could be waived or tolled by agreement of the parties.”2 Id. Brendsel eventually, through a letter from counsel, rejected in full Winchester’s claim for fees and overhead costs. As the majority notes, “[t]he letter acknowledged a net balance owing under the contract of $604,565 but claimed credits against that balance of $871,872 for overcharges and construction defects, leaving a new balance to Brendsel.” 392 Md. at 607, 898 A.2d at 475.
On January 9, 2004, Winchester, in an amended petition, filed to enforce the mechanic’s lien, and asked for “a stay of proceedings after an interlocutory lien is established pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding between the parties hereto.” 392 Md. at 608, 898 A.2d at 476. On March 5, 2004, a consent motion was filed by both parties, agreeing that with limited discovery, some issues could be resolved. 392 Md. at 608-09, 898 A.2d at 476. On March 8, 2004, an interlocutory lien was entered in favor of Winchester, declaring that neither the consent motion nor anything that was conducted during the discovery period would waive the right to arbitration. 392 Md. at 608-09, 898 A.2d at 476. Brendsel filed an answer and counterclaim. 392 Md. at 608-09, 898 A.2d at 476. Winchester claimed that the counterclaim was also subject to arbitration. 392 Md. at 608-09, 898 A.2d at 476-77. After the discovery period ended, Brendsel filed a motion for partial summary *623judgment. 392 Md. at 609, 898 A.2d at 476-77. Again, Winchester filed a petition to compel arbitration and to stay all further judicial proceedings, contending that “through its motion for partial summary judgment, Brendsel was seeking a ruling on the merits of its counterclaim, which was subject to arbitration.” 392 Md. at 609, 898 A.2d at 476. On July 6, 2004, Brendsel filed an opposition to the petition to compel arbitration, using arguments similar to those argued sub judice. 392 Md. at 609, 898 A.2d at 476-77. The appellants sub judice, in challenging the stay, contend that Winchester, in seeking an interlocutory mechanic’s lien, waived its right to arbitrate any disputes arising from the contract. The Majority, like the trial court, rejects the appellants’ argument, concluding instead that, by filing a court action to establish an interlocutory mechanic’s lien and obtaining one, Winchester did not waive its right to compel arbitration of an arbitrable dispute. 392 Md. at 603-04, 898 A.2d at 473.
I do not understand how the seeking of a mechanic’s lien, under these factual circumstances, is not a waiver of the right to arbitration. As I see it, the issue really is one of contract interpretation, to which, as we have so often pointed out, the usual canons of statutory interpretation apply. See Tomran v. Passano, 391 Md. 1, 891 A.2d 336 (2006) (“The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to give effect to the parties’ intentions”). We have to determine the intent of the parties to the contract. Myers v. Kayhoe, 391 Md. 188, 198, 892 A.2d 520, 526 (2006). In seeking that intent, we start with the words of the contract, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. Myers, 391 Md. at 198, 892 A.2d at 526. If the words used are clear and unambiguous, we give effect to them, as written, Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., 363 Md. 232, 251, 768 A.2d 620, 630 (2001), and we will look no further for the parties’ intent, nor will we add or delete words to achieve a meaning not otherwise evident from a fair reading of the language used. 363 Md. at 251, 768 A.2d at 630. In that situation, it is irrelevant that the parties, or, as in this case, one of the parties, interpreted the contract differently or thought it meant something else. Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees’ *624Ret. Sys., 390 Md. 639, 656-57, 890 A.2d 737, 747 (2006) (“[T]he clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean”).
This is the objective law of contract interpretation and construction, Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook, 386 Md. 468, 496-497, 872 A.2d 969, 985 (2005); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels, 303 Md. 254, 261, 492 A.2d 1306, 1310 (1985); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 293 Md. 409, 420, 445 A.2d 14, 19 (1982), which we have explained, as follows:
“A court construing an agreement under this test must first determine from the language of the agreement itself what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have meant at the time it was effectuated. In addition, when the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction, and a court must presume that the parties meant what they expressed. In these circumstances, the true test of what is meant is not what the parties to the contract intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. Consequently, the clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away [sic] to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean. Consequently, the clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean.... As a result, when the contractual language is clear and unambiguous, and in the absence of fraud, duress, or mistake, parol evidence is not admissible to show the intention of the parties or to vary, alter, or contradict the terms of that contract.”
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook, 386 Md. at 496-497, 872 A.2d at 985, quoting General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels, 303 Md. at 261, 492 A.2d at 1310. Only when the language of the contract is ambiguous will we look to extraneous sources for the contract’s meaning. In that event, the intention of the parties must be established through relevant parol evidence or *625by strictly construing the clause against its author. Adloo v. H.T. Brown Real Estate, Inc., 344 Md. 254, 267, 686 A.2d 298, 304 (1996).
It also is relevant, instructive, even, that the mechanic’s lien statute is itself clear and unambiguous with respect, not only to the time requirements that must be met as a condition to obtaining the lien, but, as well, with respect to the property to which it has applicability. Maryland Code (1974, 2003 Replacement Volume) § 9-102(a) of the Real Property Article is relevant to this case. It provides:
“(a) Every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of 15 percent of its value is subject to establishment of a lien in accordance with this subtitle for the payment of all debts, without regard to the amount, contracted for work done for or about the building and for materials furnished for or about the building, including the drilling and installation of wells to supply water, the construction or installation of any swimming pool or fencing, the sodding, seeding or planting in or about the premises of any shrubs, trees, plants, flowers or nursery products, the grading, filling, landscaping, and paving of the premises, and the leasing of equipment, with or without an operator, for use for or about the building or premises.”
So, too, is the fact, undenied by Winchester, that it is an experienced contractor. Therefore, we are justified in assuming that it was either well aware, or chargeable with knowledge, of the mechanic’s lien statute, its applicability and, more importantly, the time constraints to which it was subject.
As we have seen, this is a contract for the renovation of an historic plantation. We must presume, there being no contention to the contrary, that it was an arm’s length one, entered into voluntarily and that the terms were negotiated, or, at least, not dictated by one party to the other one. Moreover, it involved extensive work to be done by Winchester. Consequently, and this is not disputed, the property that was the subject of the contract was subject to the establishment of a mechanic’s lien. Indeed, Winchester’s seeking to establish *626one on the property confirms that this is so. We have also seen that the contract clearly and unambiguously provided for the use of arbitration as the preferred and exclusive dispute resolution method; it requires that “all” covered claims or disputes be “decided by arbitration.” Yet the contract into which Winchester voluntarily entered, the contract that provided that arbitration is the exclusive remedy, makes absolutely no reference to the mechanic’s lien statute or the appellee’s entitlement to utilize it in supplementation of that exclusive remedy. Thus, it is clear beyond cavil that no exception to the exclusive remedy of arbitration was made for mechanic’s lien proceedings.
That the parties agreed that arbitration would be their exclusive remedy—the only method available for the resolution of claims and disputes arising under or relating to the contract—and did not, as certainly they could have done, see Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 418-419, 872 A.2d 735, 739 (2005), preserve their right to resort to supplemental or ancillary relief, statutory or otherwise, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the parties intended that only arbitration would be available and must be used; all other relief, remedies, or dispute resolution methods were excluded. In my view, it is not even arguable that the parties contemplated the hybrid proceedings the majority endorses. It is clear, in any event, that the contract does not support such an approach.
The claim that Winchester has against the appellants arises out of, or relates to, the contract documents or the breach of the contract. It also is the basis for the mechanic’s lien that Winchester seeks. Thus, the claim that Winchester would pursue in arbitration is the same claim that underlies its mechanic’s lien proceedings and, of course, the property on which the lien would be placed is that out of which the claim itself arises or relates. Because the contract did not except the mechanic’s lien proceedings from its coverage, from the claims and disputes to which arbitration must be utilized for resolution, or expressly permit such proceedings as a placeholder, a provision that could have been included if agreed to by the appellants, it follows that Winchester was not author*627ized to resort to the court. Rather, it was required to initiate and pursue arbitration. By resorting to court in the first instance, even if it was intended to be only for a short time, and in aid of arbitration, when its contract did not authorize it, eschewing, in the process, as an initial matter, the arbitration remedy, Winchester waived its right to arbitration. See NSC Contractors, Inc. v. Borders, 317 Md. 394, 564 A.2d 408 (1989) (holding that by filing a claim for monetary damages seeking final judgment order against architect, contractor of project waived arbitration, provided by contract, of dispute as to proper amount of money withheld); Charles J. Frank, Inc. v. Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore, Inc., 294 Md. 443, 450 A.2d 1304 (1982) (holding that a party waives right to arbitrate an issue by participation in a judicial proceeding, the waiver is limited to those issues raised and/or decided in the judicial proceeding and, absent additional evidence of intent, the waiver does not extend to any unrelated issues arising under the contract); RTKL Assoc., Inc. v. Four Villages Ltd. Partnership, 95 Md.App. 135, 144, 620 A.2d 351, 355 (1993) (holding that a party’s pursuit of litigation before seeking to compel arbitration, as previously agreed upon, resulted in a waiver of the right to arbitration).
The majority, like the appellee, relies on Frederick Contractors, Inc. v. Bel Pre Med. Ctr., Inc., 274 Md. 307, 334 A.2d 526 (1975), and Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 872 A.2d 735 (2005). The majority acknowledges, and I agree, that these cases do not address the precise issue this case presents. I go further; these cases are completely inapposite, although, in one particular, Walther actually supports my position.
In Bel Pre Med. Ctr., Inc., as in this case, the parties entered into a contract, pursuant to which Frederick Contractors, Inc. undertook to build an addition to Bel Pre’s nursing home and in which they agreed, with exceptions not here relevant, that “[a]ll claims, disputes and other matters in question arising out of, or relating to, this Contract or the breach thereof ... shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the *628parties mutually agree otherwise.” 274 Md. at 310-311, 334 A.2d at 528. When Frederick did not receive all of the compensation it felt it had earned, it recorded a mechanics’ lien in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and more than thirty (30) days later, filed in that court a bill of complaint to foreclose the lien. 274 Md. at 309, 334 A.2d at 527-528. Thereafter, almost another thirty (30) days later, Bel Pre moved to strike the mechanic’s lien, arguing both that its contract with Frederick required the arbitration of any disputes arising out of the contract and that it had demanded that dispute resolution method. 274 Md. at 309, 334 A.2d at 528. Despite the denial of its motion to strike, Bel Pre persisted in its answer to the Bill to insist that the contract required arbitration, prompting Frederick to seek injunctive relief on the ground that Bel Pre had not timely demanded that the dispute be arbitrated. 274 Md. at 309, 334 A.2d at 528. The trial court granted the relief, permanently enjoining Bel Pre and Frederick from proceeding to arbitration. 274 Md. at 309, 334 A.2d at 528. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the permanent injunction and remanded for the entry of an order compelling arbitration and staying further proceedings in the Circuit Court. Bel Pre Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc., 21 Md.App. 307, 330, 320 A.2d 558, 572 (1974).
Although the intermediate appellate court acknowledged what I contend sv' judice, that “[W]hen the parties have agreed to submit any and all controversies arising out of the contract to an arbitrator, all issues other than those expressly and specifically excluded must be submitted to arbitration,” 21 Md.App. at 327, 320 A.2d at 569-70, because the refusal to arbitrate was based not on a contention that the substantive issues were not arbitrable, but on the contention that arbitration had not timely been made, id. at 322, 320 A.2d at 567, it perceived that “the question of substantive arbitrability [was] not before [it],” even though the contractor filed the mechanics’ lien proceedings without first resorting to arbitration. Id. at 322-23, 320 A.2d at 567. Missing from that analysis is any focus on the obligation of the contractor, clearly a party to the *629arbitration contract, to itself initiate arbitration proceedings, especially given Bel Pre’s motion to strike. Also worth noticing is the inconsistency of the approach with the parties’ contractual undertakings, holding one party to the terms of its contract, while, presumably precisely because of that fact,3 excusing the other. At the very least, therefore, the issue the case sub judice presents was not before the Court of Special Appeals in Bel Pre Med. Ctr. for decision, and it certainly did not decide it.
The Court of Appeals focused on the effect of the filing of a demand to arbitrate on earlier filed proceedings to foreclose a mechanics’ lien, rather than on the right of Frederick to have filed the mechanics’ lien proceedings in the first instance, which was the thrust of Bel Pre’s motion to strike. Concluding that “the timeliness of a demand for arbitration is a threshold question”, for the court, 274 Md. at 315, 334 A.2d at 531, it perceived “the critical question [to be] what effect the demand for arbitration had upon the pending action.” Id. Thus, the Court saw its task as harmonizing the Maryland Arbitration Act with the concept of the mechanics’ lien law. 274 Md. at 315, 334 A.2d at 531. It was in this context that the Court stated that “Frederick took timely action to assert its lien,” id., and that “an attachment would lie to enforce any award which might be made by arbitrators to whom the controversy was to be submitted for determination after the action had been instituted.” Id. at 315, 334 A.2d at 531, citing Shriver v. State ex red. Devilbiss, 9 G. & J. 1, 9 (Md.1837). Shriver, however, was decided on the basis of two statutes *630addressing the submission of pending cases to arbitration, and was decided long before the enactment of the Maryland Arbitration Act, codified at Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Replacement Vol., 2005 Supp.) title 3, subtitle 2 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article. Under the Maryland Arbitration Act, executory agreements to arbitrate, previously unfavored when Shriver was decided, see Eisel v. Howell, 220 Md. 584, 587-88, 155 A.2d 509, 511 (1959); Tomlinson v. Dille, 147 Md. 161, 167, 127 A. 746, 748 (1925),4 became “favored.” See Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp. 298 Md. 96, 103, 468 A.2d 91, 95 (1983) (noting a legislative policy favoring enforcement of executory agreements to arbitrate); see also Cheek v. United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 378 Md. 139, 835 A.2d 656 (2003) (explaining arbitration’s favored status); Holmes v. Coverall North America, Inc., 336 Md. 534, 649 A.2d 365 (1994) (observing the Maryland legislative intent to favor arbitration); Charles J. Frank, Inc. v. Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore, Inc., 294 Md. 443, 450 A.2d 1304 (1982) (expressing the legislative policy favoring arbitration). In context, therefore, the statement, on which the majority principally relies, “[wjhile the parties may have bound themselves by the general conditions of the contract to accept the resolution of disputes by arbitration, they in no way limited themselves in the manner by which payment of an award may be enforced” is not surprising.
It is interesting, however, that the authority cited is Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Repl. Volume) § 3-202 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which provides:
“An agreement providing for arbitration under the law of the State confers jurisdiction on a court to enforce the agreement and enter judgment on an arbitration award.”
*631Certainly this provision does not suggest, not to mention require, that a party to an arbitration agreement is free to come to court, in contradiction of the express terms of the contract, if that party believes that the failure to do so would, or potentially could, affect the recovery to which the party is due. That eventuality is a matter that could, and should, have been addressed when the parties contracted for the resolution of potential disputes.
In Walther, the arbitration agreement at issue provided:
“BINDING ARBITRATION. The parties agree that any claim, dispute or controversy arising from or relating to this agreement or the relationships which result from this agreement, including the validity of this arbitration clause or the entire agreement, shall be resolved by binding arbitration by and under the Code of Procedure of the National Arbitration Forum in effect at the time the claim is filed. This arbitration agreement is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1-16. Judgment upon the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to limit the right of any party to 1) foreclose against real or personal property or other security by an exercised power of sale under a security instrument or applicable law, 2) exercise self-help remedies, or 3) obtain provisional or ancillary remedies with regard to such securities, including without limitation, injunctive relief, sequestration, attachment, garnishment, or the appointment of a receiver from a Court having competent jurisdiction before, during or after the pendency of any arbitration. The pursuit of any such remedy shall not constitute a waiver of the 'right of any party to have all other claims or disputes resolved by arbitration. The parties agree that any dispute subject to arbitration shall not be adjudicated as a class action or consolidated class proceeding. By signing this agreement, the parties acknowledge that they had a right or opportunity to litigate disputes through a court, but that they preferred to resolve any disputes through arbitration. The *632parties acknowledge that they are waiving their right to jury trial by consenting to binding arbitration.”
386 Md. at 418-41.9, 872 A.2d at 739 (emphasis added). Thus, the parties in that case were explicit in their agreement with regard to what was not covered by the arbitration agreement, exempting those actions or proceedings as to which the court, or another venue, would be appropriate. Consequently, Walther, rather than supporting the majority, provides the answer for how a party with a court remedy that can not be duplicated in arbitration can avoid the dilemma that choosing arbitration and excluding the judicial forum creates. To be sure, the Walther solution may be subject to other challenges, see 386 Md. 412, 450, 872 A.2d 735, 758 (Bell, C.J., dissenting) (critiquing Walther on lack of mutuality grounds), but the availability of the court remedy would not be one of them.
Exempting the initiation, if not the completion, of the mechanics’ lien remedy from an arbitration agreement, which does not provide any exception for it, raises fairness concerns. It gives one of the parties to the agreement an advantage for which, as the agreement reflects, the parties did not bargain. Because a plain reading of an arbitration agreement like the one at issue in this case leads necessarily to the conclusion that neither party is entitled to pursue any remedy other than arbitration, reading into the contract the exception for court proceedings in aid of later execution really is a rewriting of the contract, something we are supposed not to do. Worse, however, is that the rewrite is in favor one party to the detriment of the other, simply because there is a statutory remedy which the Legislature enacted for the benefit of that party.
To be sure, mechanics’ liens are available for the protection of materialmen, and it also is appropriate that such proceedings be favored. Mechanics’ liens are not mandatory, however. A materialman need not use the proceedings; he or she is not required to get a lien or, having filed it, foreclose on it. The materialman could waive entitlement to its advantages. This could, and does, occur by not filing the appropriate papers in a timely manner, or by contract, including arbitra*633tion contracts, either by expressly so providing or by using terms inconsistent with the mechanics’ lien remedy. That is true of, and is not inconsistent with, the treatment of other favored and even fundamental protections. See Walther, 386 Md. 412, 872 A.2d 735 (holding that although the right to a jury trial is fundamental under the Maryland Declaration of Rights, parties can contractually waive their right to a jury trial, which ordinarily requires that the waiver be “knowing and intelligent”), Twining v. National Mortg. Corp., 268 Md. 549, 302 A.2d 604 (1973) (holding that either party to a contract may waive any of the provisions made for his benefit), Lanahan v. Heaver, 77 Md. 605, 26 A. 866 (1893) (holding that a promise to relinquish the constitutional right to a jury trial is a sufficient consideration for an agreement to submit a civil case to the court). See also ST Systems Corp. v. Maryland Nat. Bank, 112 Md.App. 20, 684 A.2d 32 (1996) (holding that even though the right to a jury trial is fundamental, parties can contractually waive their right to a jury trial), Meyer v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 85 Md.App. 83, 91, 582 A.2d 275, 278 (1990) (“An agreement to arbitrate either future or existing disputes involves more than just the waiver of a right to jury trial, although that is certainly implicit in such an agreement”).

. In this respect, therefore, this case differs drastically from Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 872 A.2d 735 (2005), on which, as we shall see, infra, the majority relies. 392 Md. 601, 610-14, 898 A.2d 472, 477-79 (2006). In that case, recognizing that certain remedies, i.e. injunctions, liens, receivorships, etc., are available only in a court proceeding and that they may be useful, and therefore resort to them is desirable, in certain circumstances, the Bank quite deliberately, and expressly, hedged its bet with respect to the dispute resolution choice, opting to except, in addition to foreclosures and self-help remedies, "provisional or ancillary remedies with regard to such securities, including without limitation, injunctive relief, sequestration, attachment, garnishment, or the appointment of a receiver from a Court having competent jurisdiction before, during or after the pendency of any arbitration.” The agreement was clear:
"The pursuit of any such remedy shall not constitute a waiver of the right of any party to have all other claims or disputes resolved by arbitration.”
Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 419, 872 A.2d 735, 739 (2005).

. There is a temporal element to the Maryland mechanic’s lien statute; ordinarily, the right to a mechanic's lien is lost, if not pursued. Maryland Code (1974, 2003 Replacement Volume) § 9-105 of the Real Property Article provides, as relevant:
“(a) In order to establish a lien under this subtitle, a person entitled to a lien shall file proceedings in the circuit court for the county where the land or any part of the land is located within 180 days after the work has been finished or the materials furnished....”

. I assume this to be the case because, having acknowledged that "the parties” agreed to arbitration and noting the contractor’s failure to initiate such proceedings, the focus shifted immediately to the owner’s demand for arbitration "of the issues concerning the amount of money ... due and owing,” the timeliness as to which there was some dispute. Bel Pre Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc., 21 Md.App. 307, 322, 320 A.2d 558, 567 (1974). Indeed, the court characterized the issue as whether a broad arbitration agreement, as in that case, precluded a court from determining the amount of money due for labor and materials supplied by a contractor to an owner. 21 Md.App. at 314, 320 A.2d at 562.

. This is contrasted with the attitude toward suits to enforce arbitration awards, which was to view them as "favored” actions. See Parr Construction Co. v. Pomer, 217 Md. 539, 543, 144 A.2d 69, 72 (1958); Dominion Marble Co. v. Morrow, 130 Md. 255, 260, 100 A. 292, 293 (1917); Lewis v. Burgess, 5 Gill. 129, 131 (1847); Caton v. MacTavish, 10 Gill. & J. 192, 216-217 (1838).