The defendants sought an order in the nature of an appeal from a construction lien master’s report confirming liability arising from renovation work performed on the defendants’ home.
The master found that although the corporate plaintiff was not the direct contracting party, recovery was available on the basis of unjust enrichment given the services and materials supplied and the essential connection between the corporate entity and the individual who performed the work.
The defendants argued the master exceeded jurisdiction under the Construction Lien Act and erred in awarding equitable relief and in recognizing a subcontractor’s lien entitlement.
The court held that the statutory scheme provides broad authority to resolve all matters arising from the lien action and permits personal judgment even where a lien fails.
Finding no palpable or overriding error, the court confirmed the master’s report.
