Representative Cases

Construction Liens and Disputes

Representative Result #1

Capsule Summary:
Our client's dream home turned into a nightmare, with extensive delays and construction defects. The construction company recorded a massive lien against our client's property, holding up loan funding needed to finish the construction and repair the damages. Molosky & Co. successfully obtained an immediate injunction to remove the lien, and the court ruled that the lien was illegal, awarding damages including our costs and attorney fees.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co.'s client entered a contract to build his dream home, only to have construction delayed for months, and then to suffer through one construction problem after another. The client then discovered the company named as his builder never had a builder's license during the construction of his home. He demanded that the company leave his property, so that he could try to repair the defects and finish the construction on his own. The company responded by filing a six-figure lien against our client's property, preventing our client from obtaining loan funds needed to fix the problems. Molosky & Co. obtained an immediate injunction removing the lien, and then won on Slander of Title and Violation of Construction Lien Act claims, entitling our client to damages and the recovery of costs and attorney fees.

Representative Result #2

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully recovered over $40,000 for our client after his homebuilder improperly constructed a master bedroom chimney.

Expanded Description:
Our client hired an architect to design an extraordinary residence on the shores of Lake Charlevoix. After months of planning and design, our clients put the project out to bid. Construction began soon after choosing the winning bid; however, the contractor's failure to properly estimate the project resulted in numerous delays and increased costs. Following our client's retirement, the home became his full-time residence. It was after that time that our client discovered a dripping sound inside the master bedroom chimney; a 30-foot tall, field stone tower sealed with a custom stucco cap. Proper investigation revealed that the contractor failed to install a vapor barrier between the fieldstone and sheathing, causing widespread damage and requiring the chimney to be completely rebuilt at a substantial cost. The contractor's insurer first offered our client $1,000 in full settlement of the claim and then, following the expiration of a statute of limitations, refused to cover our client's loss at all. Molosky & Co. filed suit on behalf of our client, successfully defeated the insurer's statute of limitations argument and ultimately obtained a settlement payment for our client in excess of $40,000.

Representative Result #3

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully discharged multiple construction liens from our client's property and obtained our client's early dismissal from a complex lawsuit involving numerous construction lien foreclosure claims.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented homeowners in a complicated construction lien lawsuit involving no less than six consolidated cases, five of which sought to foreclose construction liens recorded on our clients' property. Our client fully paid their general contractor, but unbeknownst to them, the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractors who provided services and materials during construction. The subcontractors individually filed suit against the contractor and our clients. We ensured that our client's property interest was safe by filing an affidavit of payment under the Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund and invoking statutory protections thereunder. However, even with no potential liability, our client still faced being a party to a protracted and expensive lawsuit. Working in our client's best interest, Molosky & Co. procured each subcontractor's consent to an order dismissing our client from the lawsuit. Consequently, our client went on with his life while the lawsuit lingered on for years.

Representative Result #4

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully enforced our client's rights following significant breaches by the builder during construction of our client's home.

Expanded Description:
Our client hired a builder to build a house designed by a prominent architect. Unbeknownst to our client, the builder did not have the experience to build such a magnificent custom home. The builder's lack of experience resulted in significant errors throughout the preliminary stages of construction, which resulted in the architect withdrawing its approval of the project. Afterwards, the builder refused our client's requests for a curative meeting. With the architect's approval withdrawn and no understanding reached with the builder, our client put locks on the house's doors and garage to prevent further construction. The builder then broke the locks and trespassed onto our client's property in order to continue construction. Following this disturbing event and the builder's conviction for trespass and illegal entry, our client promptly terminated their relationship with the builder. The builder sued our client for breach of contract and foreclosure of its construction lien. On behalf of our client, Molosky & Co. filed a countersuit for breach of contract, violation of Builder's Trust Fund Act, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, promissory estoppel, innocent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, slander of title, breach of warranty, and trespass. Our skilled and decisive representation quickly resolved the dispute when the builder agreed to our client's settlement terms.

Representative Result #5

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. protected our client's interests in a situation involving unpaid mold invoices.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. filed a mold builder's lien on behalf of client for over $150,000 in unpaid invoices relating to various production molds. Notification of the lien resulted in two separate suits in which the Plaintiff sought payment from several companies, including the company in default. The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein one of the Defendants agreed to remit payments directly to our client as a set off against monies owed to the company in default.

Back to the Top