Motions were brought to oppose confirmation of a master's interim report under the Construction Lien Act determining the relationship between an owner and a construction firm.
The master concluded the relationship was one of owner and general contractor rather than owner and construction manager, affecting calculation of statutory holdback obligations and priority among lien claimants and mortgagees.
The moving parties argued the master misinterpreted the contract, improperly relied on extrinsic evidence, and incorrectly considered industry standards.
The court held that the master properly found ambiguity created by amendments to a standard form construction management contract and appropriately considered extrinsic evidence and the parties’ conduct in performing the contract.
Finding no reversible error in the contractual interpretation, the court confirmed the master’s interim report.
