Maryland case law › Brosenne v. Warthen

Brosenne v. Warthen

226 Md. 168 (1961) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: Affirmed✓ Good law
HoldingThe owner of unimproved property in Howard County contracted with builders Kuhn and Vinci to erect two dwellings.

Per Curiam. The sole question on this appeal is whether the subcontractor (W. O wings War then, trading as War then Fuel Company) gave timely notice to the owner (Katherine M. Brosenne) of his intention to claim a mechanics’ lien. The owner of unimproved property at Savage in Howard County contracted with the builders (Kuhn and Vinci) to erect two dwellings on the property, and the builders or general contractors engaged the subcontractor to install the plumbing and heating systems in both houses. Work on both projects was begun on July 23, 1953.

On August 23 the gas-fired furnaces were installed in the basements of each house and were connected with the metal duct work, but were subsequently disconnected and moved upstairs for safekeeping. The registers had been fastened to the walls of one house on August 21. Those in the other house were attached on September 10. Installation of the plumbing fixtures was completed in the early part of October.

No further work was done by the subcontractor on the heating systems until March 2, 1954. There was further evidence that the builders requested the subcontractor to remove the furnaces and place them in the kitchens of the houses until such time as the basements had been emptied of water that had accumulated therein. Shortly thereafter the subcontractor began to make periodic efforts to complete the work, but in each instance he found the houses locked and no one on the premises. And, although he discussed the water problem with the owner and informed her that he had not been paid, neither she nor the builders made any effort to remove the water to the end that the subcontractor could complete the performance of his contract.

Sometime in January of 1954 the subcontractor learned that both furnaces had been reinstalled by another person engaged by the builders with the knowledge of the owner after she had made another payment to the builders. The practice of keeping the house locked was continued, but, on March 2, 1954, two employees of the subcontractor, finding the doors

This is a preview of Brosenne v. Warthen. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.