Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

CHRISTOPHER LORD v. HANNON ARMSTRONG CAPITAL, LLC

Contracts breach — Breach — Treating salary as commission

Christopher Lord, appellant, appeals the entry of judgment against him and in favor of his former employer, Hannon Armstrong Capital, LLC (“Hannon Armstrong”), appellee, in Lord’s suit seeking damages for Hannon Armstrong’s alleged failure to pay him certain commissions and bonuses.

After a five-day bench trial was conducted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the court took the matter under advisement.

Thereafter, the circuit court filed a written opinion and entered judgment in favor of Hannon Armstrong on all claims.

Appellant presented this Court with six issues on appeal, which we have distilled and restated for clarity as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in determining that Hannon Armstrong was not legally obligated to pay appellant a commission on the Hudson Ranch project?

2. Did the trial court err in determining that Hannon Armstrong was under no contractual or legal obligation to continue paying appellant the quarterly net cash fee income bonus (“NCFI bonus”) once he left the General Counsel position?

3. Did the trial court err in determining that Hannon Armstrong did not breach appellant’s Executive Agreement when, beginning in January 2010, it began to treat $100,000 of his salary as a draw against future commissions?

Read the opinion here:

 

CHRISTOPHER LORD
v.
HANNON ARMSTRONG CAPITAL, LLC