The plaintiff registered a construction lien and sought payment for services relating to a residential renovation project.
The defendant and third party argued that the three participants were partners in a real estate venture rather than contractor and owner.
The court examined the memorandum of understanding, the parties’ conduct, and the indicia of partnership under the Partnerships Act.
It held that the plaintiff was a partner who contributed professional services rather than a contractor, and therefore could not claim a construction lien against property in which he had a beneficial ownership interest.
The lien claim and alternative contractual claims were dismissed, and the defendant’s counterclaim and third‑party claim for contribution toward alleged partnership losses were also dismissed for failure of proof.
