Court Opinion

ID: 9575981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:19:10.723287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:55.852134
License: Public Domain

Stolz, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority has mistakenly applied the lien application to a situation where the owner files a bond to release the property from a materialman’s lien, to the situation presented here where the bond is filed by the contractor. The two situations have different results, as shall be seen.
Absent any contrary showing, it must be assumed that Shapiro was, as it alleged in its bond, "the contractor employed to improve [the owner’s] property,” so as to be a proper party to file the bond to discharge Yates’ lien.
"When the bond to discharge the lien under Code Ann. § 67-2004 [Ga. L. 1953, p. 544; 1972, p. 469] was filed and recorded the bond was substituted for the lien (Pickett v. Chamblee Construction Co., 124 Ga. App. 769 (8) (186 SE2d 123)), and the lien, being discharged, could no *681longer be foreclosed against the real estate or the owners, though the supplier of materials has a remedy against the bond.” Vector Co. v. Star Enterprises, 131 Ga. App. 569, 571 (206 SE2d 636).
Hence, since the lien could no longer be foreclosed, it was not necessary, as the appellants contend, for the materialman, Yates, to prove that it is entitled to a lien as a condition .precedent to recovery on the bond. The defenses filed by the appellants to the appellee’s action on the bond, properly could be made not by the defendants, but by the owner. "A materialman who has provided labor on the owner’s premises and duly recorded his lien is entitled to foreclose, subject to certain defenses on the part of the owner,...” (Emphasis supplied.) Melton v. Lowe, 117 Ga. App. 783, 784 (161 SE2d 912).
I agree with the majority that the legislative intent was to have the bond serve as a replacement for the lien. Vector Co. v. Star Enterprises, supra. My disagreement with the majority is in the fact that I am of the opinion that there is a difference as to treatment between the owner and the contractor dependent upon who files the bond. There is a different effect when a contractor files the bond and when the owner files it. The materialman’s lien is foreclosed "subject to certain defenses on the part of the owner,” as we indicated in Melton v. Lowe, supra. Thus, if the owner files the bond, he is entitled to raise such defenses to the materialman’s action thereon as he could raise to the foreclosing of the lien.
When the contractor files the bond, however, as is the case here, these defenses are not relevant at that point in time. Although one of the purposes of this bond is to protect the owners, and allow them to alienate their property, surely another purpose must be to protect the interest of the materialman and allow him to recover from the contractor what he has spent on the job. After the contractor has paid the materialman (either in cash or by the bond), then the contractor can go against the owner to recover the payment. At this point the owner could assert any defenses he has. Of course, when the owner himself posts the bond, he can file any defenses he may have directly to the materialman’s action on the bond.
In the case sub judice, the materialman had already *682obtained a consent judgment against the contractor, which established his right of recovery from the contractor. If the owner has a defense or defenses, he can raise it when the contractor seeks to recover from the owner. In the case of Montgomery, cited by the majority, the bond was filed by the owner, not the general contractor, as is the situation in our case. Where the owner filed the bond, the right to a lien was relevant, since the owner can assert defenses thereto (Melton v. Lowe, supra). Where {he contractor files the bond (as here), however, the contractor can not raise defenses which must be raised by the owner.
Absent any showing that the owner was aware of the contract between the contractor, C.B.C., and the subcontractor-materialman, Yates, or that it had acted to its injury in reliance thereon, or that C.B.C. was acting as the agent of the owner, the owner was not bound by the contract between C.B.C. and Yates. Mass. Bonding &c. Co. v. Realty Trust Co., 142 Ga. 499 (4) (83 SE 210). The plaintiff materialman complied with all of the conditions precedent to recovery on the bond.
The trial court correctly granted Yates’ motion for summary judgment and I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Marshall joins in this dissent.