Oct 22, 2013 0
My story in Tuesday’s paper about a dispute between homeowners and their contractor only touched on one part of the arguments in court — that SBR Construction Co. did not have a license when it performed work on the Gaithersburg home of Ferris R. Bond and Jane C. Norman.
The other part of Monday’s hearing concerned Norman’s motion to dismiss herself from the contractor’s lawsuit. Her argument? She didn’t sign the contract, her husband did.
“There is no cause of action against Defendant Norman because she is not a party to the contract,” her motion for dismissal states.
SBR countered Norman was “actively involved” in the renovation work, including coordinating work days for the contractor.
That Norman didn’t sign the pact “does not mean she did not accept the terms of the contract by her actions and that she is not otherwise legally bound by the contract,” a lawyer for SBR wrote in opposition to Norman’s motion.
Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Marielsa A. Bernard asked Norman’s lawyer Monday whether Norman was “an active participant” in the renovation work.
The lawyer, Thomas A. Mauro, replied SBR’s complaint was “very general” and that it should be amended to reflect Norman’s role.
“He’s the one who dealt with the contractor the whole time,” Mauro said of Bond. “Just checking on work, that’s not enough to implicate Mrs. Norman.”
Bernard gave SBR two weeks to amend its complaint