Justice Yvonne Lewis
Defendant 6422 Holding Corp. moved for summary judgment against plaintiff Scarano Architect and a finding Scarano willfully exaggerated its mechanic’s lien. Scarano asserted a mechanic’s lien on six condo units owned by 6322 claiming a more than $125,000 balance remained on the payments due for architectural work. 6322 disputed the amount it allegedly owed Scarano, claiming the parties agreed to a substitute deal in which Scarano would discharge a prior debt for $20,000, and noted it paid $15,000, thereby only owing $5,000. Scarano argued the deal was an accord, not a substitute agreement, alleging 6322 did not comply with it, thus the accord was never satisfied, entitling Scarano to assert a mechanic’s lien for the full amount due. The court found it was undisputed 6322 failed to perform its obligations under the agreement requiring it to pay $20,000. Thus, as the satisfaction was not tendered, Scarano was entitled to sue and claim a lien in the amount of the original claim. Also, as the agreement was not in writing it was non-binding and unenforceable. In denying 6322′s motion entirely, the court noted even if Scarano exaggerated the lien amount, it was still entitled to recover damages on account of an exaggerated lien.
