Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. Catholic University of America
796 A.2d 744 | Court of Appeals of Maryland | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Bragunier Masonry, a subcontractor, won a judgment against a general contractor (Crough, Inc.) for unpaid work on one project. When Crough couldn't pay, Bragunier tried to garnish funds the university owed Crough for a different project where Bragunier never worked. Maryland's highest court ruled against Bragunier, holding that a creditor in garnishment can only recover what the original debtor could have recovered, and the claim was time-barred because the underlying debt's statute of limitations had expired.
Key Takeaways
- •You cannot garnish a customer's payments to your contractor for unrelated projects—you can only reach funds tied to the specific work you performed.
- •Garnishment claims are subject to the same statute of limitations as the original debt; waiting too long to pursue collection kills your garnishment rights.
- •When pursuing a judgment, focus on collecting directly from the party that owes you, not from their other customers or projects.
The creditor merely steps into the shoes of the debtor and can only recover to the same extent as could the debtor.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I garnish my contractor's payments from other projects to collect an unpaid judgment?
No. You can only garnish funds related to the specific project where you performed work. Additionally, you must act within the statute of limitations period for the original debt, or your garnishment claim will be dismissed. Focus on collecting directly from the contractor first.
Related Cases
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.
Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.
Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.
Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.
A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.
PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. Partnership
DTPA claims are not assignable because assignment would defeat the statute's primary purpose of encouraging individual consumers to bring claims themselves, and DTPA claims are too personal and punitive in nature to be transferred as property.