Idaho Supreme Court
Confirms That An LLC and Its Members Are Distinct
In a recent decision, the Idaho
Supreme Court has confirmed that an LLC and its members are legally distinct
from one another. Stonebrook Constr., LLC v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 277 P.3d 374
(Idaho 2012).
Idaho has a Contractor
Registration Act requiring that construction contractors register with the
state. Contractors that do not register
with the state are barred from filing mechanics liens on property upon which
they worked and are as well precluded from initiating suit claiming
compensation for work performed. The
statute goes on to provide that subsequent registration will not cure the prior
failure to do so. Obviously, it behooves
a contractor to register with the Idaho authorities prior to performing any
work.
In 2007, Schwendiman and Burton
organized Stonebrook Construction, LLC as an Idaho LLC. This company was the successor to a partnership
between Schwendiman and Burton that had done business as “Stonebrook
Construction.” In connection with those
pre-LLC activities, Schwendiman registered as a contractor under his own name. After its organization, Stonebrook
Construction, LLC contracted to build a house.
Ultimately, it was not paid, whereupon the LLC recorded a lien on the
property and filed a lawsuit to foreclose on it. Chase Home Finance held the deed of trust
against the property; it intervened in opposition to the LLC’s foreclosure
action. Chase moved for summary judgment
on Stonebrook’s claim, asserting that the lien was invalid in that the LLC had
not registered under Idaho’s Contractor Registration Act. The trial court agreed, dismissing the
action, whereupon the LLC appealed.
Schwendiman and the LLC argued
that Schwendiman’s individual registration should be sufficient. In effect, they sought to argue that
Schwendiman and the LLC were jointly performing the work upon a provision in
the statute addressing a “combination” of various “persons” working as a unit.
This argument was ultimately
unavailing. The Idaho Supreme Court
noted that an LLC is an entity separate and distinct from its members and that
the members are not personally responsible for the LLC’s debts and obligations. Ergo, there was not a “combination” between
Schwendiman and the LLC in the performance on this agreement. Rather, it was an obligation of the LLC.
The Court also rejected an
argument of substantial compliance, noting that the LLC had not made any effort
to satisfy the statutory requirement of registration.
In response to the argument
that the Court’s interpretation of the statute was harsh, it wrote that
“Although the result for [the LLC] is harsh, it is the result the Legislature
intended.”
No comments:
Post a Comment