MD STATECourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
1992

Parker v. Columbia Bank

604 A.2d 521Court of Special Appeals of Maryland • Decided 1992Enforced

HOLDING

The Parkers borrowed money from Columbia Bank to build a custom home but the project ran into problems. They sued the bank for fraud and breach of contract, claiming the bank should have monitored the construction and protected their interests. The Maryland court dismissed their case, ruling that the bank made only opinions (not false facts) and had no contractual duty to inspect the work or manage the loan balance. This means lenders are not responsible for overseeing construction quality or protecting borrowers from builder problems.

KEY FINDINGS

Retention

Banks have no automatic duty to inspect construction work or monitor whether a builder is doing quality work—don't expect the lender to catch problems

Change Order

Statements from builders about their experience and competence are usually treated as opinions, not facts, so they're harder to sue over as fraud

Dispute Resolution

Get everything in writing in your construction contract and loan agreement; if a duty isn't spelled out in the contract, courts won't assume it exists

FULL COURT OPINION