BIG L CORP V COURTLAND CONSTRUCTION CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
THE BIG L CORPORATION,
FOR PUBLICATION
April 1, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
COURTLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
DAVID J. ZIOMKOWSKI, MARY K.
ZIOMKOWSKI, MARK E. MCDOWELL,
AMANDA B. MCDOWELL, COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS, INC., MARVIN J. BERKENPAS
BUILDER, INC., MID-MICHIGAN CEILINGS &
DRYWALL, INC., and GRAND BANK
MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendants,
No. 271880
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 03-003563-CH
Advance Sheets Version
and
HOMEOWNER CONSTRUCTION LIEN
RECOVERY FUND,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Meter and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this action filed pursuant to the Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq.,
defendant Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund appeals as of right the trial court's June
29, 2006, judgment in favor of plaintiff The Big L Corporation. We reverse and remand.
In 2001, Mark and Amanda McDowell contracted with Courtland Construction Company
to build a house. Courtland, a general contractor, contracted with plaintiff, a subcontractor,1 to
1
We will use the term "subcontractor" to refer to both subcontractors and suppliers.
-1-
supply materials for the house. During construction, Courtland provided the McDowells' bank
with nine "Sworn Statements" listing the subcontractors Courtland contracted with, the
improvements they furnished, the total contract price, the amount already paid, and the amount
owed to each.2 These Sworn Statements were signed and dated by a Courtland officer as the
named "Deponent," but none was notarized. The McDowells' bank paid Courtland pursuant to
the statements. Although Courtland received the full contract price from the bank, Courtland
failed to pay plaintiff in full for the materials it supplied. Courtland owed plaintiff a balance of
$19,000, including $4,901.11 for materials furnished after February 19, 2002, the date of
Courtland's last Sworn Statement. On June 19, 2002, plaintiff provided its first notice of
furnishing and recorded a construction lien on the McDowells' house.
On appeal, the Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund (defendant) claims that
because the McDowells' bank made payments to Courtland pursuant to Courtland's Sworn
Statements, plaintiff's right to a construction lien was defeated by its failure to submit a timely
notice of furnishing. According to defendant, Courtland's unverified Sworn Statements
substantially complied with the requirements of MCL 570.1110(4). Resolution of this issue
involves the construction of the CLA. The proper construction of a statute is a question of law,
which we review de novo. Washburn v Makedonsky, 271 Mich App 95, 98; 718 NW2d 842
(2006).
In Vugterveen Sys, Inc v Olde Millpond Corp, 454 Mich 119, 121; 560 NW2d 43 (1997),
our Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the CLA is "to protect the interests of contractors,
workers, and suppliers through construction liens, while protecting owners from excessive
costs." The Court further stated that the act "is to be liberally construed to effectuate these
purposes." Id. The CLA creates an exchange of information between the property owner, the
general contractor, and the subcontractors. Id. The owner must file a notice of commencement
before any improvement is made to the property and, in most cases, subcontractors must provide
a notice of furnishing to the owner and general contractor within 20 days of first furnishing labor
or materials. MCL 570.1108(1); MCL 570.1109(1); Vugterveen, supra at 122. The purpose of
the notice of furnishing is to notify the owner that a subcontractor is improving the property and
to alert the owner to the possibility of a lien. Vugterveen, supra at 122, 131.
The CLA also provides owners with information by requiring general contractors to make
sworn statements itemizing their bills. MCL 570.1110(1); Vugterveen, supra at 123. A sworn
statement notifies the owner of each subcontractor, supplier, and laborer with whom the general
contractor contracted. MCL 570.1110(4). "Thus, the owner can rely on a sworn statement as a
comprehensive list of potential lien claimants." Vugterveen, supra at 123. The purpose of a
sworn statement is "to enable the homeowner to retain out of any money due or to become due to
the contractor an amount sufficient to pay the subcontractors," suppliers, and laborers. Alan
Custom Homes, Inc v Krol, 256 Mich App 505, 510; 667 NW2d 379 (2003) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). An owner may also use a "sworn statement . . . to avoid the claim
2
Although the statements were not notarized, they were titled "Sworn Statements," and thus,
they will be referred to by their title herein.
-2-
of a subcontractor, unless the subcontractor has provided a notice of furnishing." Vugterveen,
supra at 123-124. A subcontractor's failure to provide a timely notice of furnishing defeats its
right to a lien for labor and material furnished before the notice was provided, but only if the
owner made payments to the general contractor pursuant to the contractor's sworn statement or a
waiver of lien. MCL 570.1109(6); Vugterveen, supra at 122-123.
MCL 570.1110(4) requires that a sworn statement be in "substantially the following
form" as set forth in the statute. Pursuant to the statute's exemplar form, the sworn statement
must list: (1) the name of each subcontractor, supplier, and laborer with whom the general
contractor contracted; (2) the type of improvement furnished by each; (3) the total contract price;
(4) the amount already paid to each; and (5) the amount currently owing to each.3 It must also be
subscribed and sworn to before a notary public. Id.
This Court has previously ruled that a general contractor's sworn statement need only
substantially comply with MCL 570.1110(4). See Alan Custom Homes, supra at 510
(determining that "the CLA's 'substantial compliance' provision is applicable to the notice
requirement in MCL 570.1110(8)," which is currently subsection [9]); Horton v Verhelle, 231
Mich App 667, 675; 588 NW2d 144 (1998), overruled on other grounds Smith v Globe Life Ins
Co, 460 Mich 446 (1999) (stating that a sworn statement must be in substantially the same form
as outlined in MCL 570.1110[4]). "It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a clear and
unambiguous statute warrants no further interpretation and requires full compliance with its
provisions, as written." Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc v Sinacola Cos—Midwest, Inc, 461 Mich
316, 320; 603 NW2d 257 (1999). In the CLA, however, the Legislature provided an exception to
this rule by way of the "substantial compliance" provision, MCL 570.1302(1). Northern
Concrete Pipe, supra at 320-321. While this provision is limited in its application, notice
provisions such as MCL 570.1110(4) are well suited to a "substantial compliance" application.
Id. at 321-323; Alan Custom Homes, supra at 510. Moreover, failure to apply the "substantial
compliance" provision to a sworn statement would violate the plain language of MCL
570.1110(4). The Legislature only required that a sworn statement be in substantially the same
form as outlined in MCL 570.1110(4). See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 459; 613 NW2d
307 (2000) ("Each word of a statute is presumed to be used for a purpose, and, as far as possible,
effect must be given to every clause and sentence.").
We agree with defendant that the unverified Sworn Statements Courtland provided to the
McDowells' bank substantially complied with the requirements of MCL 570.1110(4). All nine
of Courtland's statements were fully compliant with the form outlined in MCL 570.1110(4),
including being signed and dated, except that they were not sworn to before a notary. In Horton,
supra at 676, this Court concluded that "a contractor's statement that is neither signed nor sworn
is not a 'sworn' statement as required by subsection 110(4)." The statement in that case was also
not dated. More recently, however, this Court found that an unverified statement that is
otherwise adequate substantially complies with "the statutory notice requirement of MCL
3
The current statutory version of the exemplar form contains minor additional requirements that
are irrelevant to this matter.
-3-
570.1110(8)," which is currently subsection 9, because it "still gives the owner notice of who the
subcontractors[, suppliers, and laborers] are and the amount owing to each for the materials and
labor supplied." Alan Custom Homes, supra at 510-511. "That a statement is not sworn before a
notary does not defeat the notice purpose of the statement." Id. at 510. Because Courtland's
statements were signed and dated by a Courtland officer, and provided notice of who the
subcontractors, suppliers, and laborers were and the amounts owed to each, the statements
substantially complied with MCL 570.1110(4).4 Therefore, because plaintiff did not provide a
notice of furnishing until after February 19, 2002, the date of Courtland's last Sworn Statement,
its claim of lien for materials furnished before that date is defeated by the untimely notice. MCL
570.1109(6).
Because the trial court held that an unverified statement does not substantially comply
with MCL 570.1110(4), we reverse the court's June 29, 2006, judgment in favor of plaintiff. But
because defendant has agreed to pay plaintiff $4,901.11 for materials furnished after February
19, 2002, we remand for entry of judgment in this amount against defendant.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
4
Plaintiff argues that holding that an unverified statement substantially compliant with MCL
570.1110(4) will create the potential for abuse by general contractors. According to plaintiff,
general contractors will no longer be deterred from submitting false statements because they will
no longer be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury. We find, however, that the applicable
criminal penalties contained in the CLA and the Michigan building contract fund act (MBCFA),
MCL 570.151 et seq., will sufficiently deter general contractors from providing false sworn
statements even absent the threat of prosecution for perjury. The CLA provides that a contractor
who submits a false sworn statement, with the intent to defraud, is guilty of a crime. MCL
570.1110(11). Such a contractor may be guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years'
imprisonment and a fine of up to $15,000 or three times the amount stated in the false statement.
Id. In addition, the MBCFA provides that a contractor who, with intent to defraud, retains or
uses payments for a purpose other than to first pay subcontractors, suppliers, or laborers, with the
intent to defraud, shall be guilty of a felony. MCL 570.152. Such a felony is punishable by a
fine of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000, along with a term of imprisonment for not
less than six months and not more than three years. Id.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
