1101 St. Paul St.
Suite 404
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone 410 539 7816
Fax 410 539 3957
Email jameskoch@jpkochlaw.com
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION, CREDITORS RIGHTS, AND BANKRUPTCY
Area Covered: All Maryland counties
Minimum Claim Size Accepted: $5,000
Fees:
The contingent fee on claims up to $75,000 is generally 25% of the amount collected after suit is filed (1/3 if the debtor contests liability and the case has to be tried in court on the merits). The contingent fee on claims over $75,000 is determined on a case by case basis on a sliding scale. The contingent fee is progressively reduced as the amount of the claim increases.
In most cases, a non-contingent suit fee is requested, due prior to filing suit. For claims up to $10,000, the non-contingent suit fee is 5% of the face amount of the claim. For claims over $10,000, the non-contingent suit fee is determined on a case by case basis, based on the size of the claim and the anticipated complexity of the litigation. The non-contingent suit fee will be credited against the contingent fee in the final account at the conclusion of the case.
Costs Payable in Advance:
District Court of Maryland cases (Claims up to $30,000): $100.00 per defendant
Circuit Court cases (Claims over $30,000): $250.00 per defendant
U.S. District Court cases (claims over $75,000): Advance costs are determined on a case by case basis
Representative Clients:
American Express Company
Bridgestone Sports
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Omni Hotels
Penske Truck Leasing Company
Reebok International
Teleflora
Transam Travel
United Leasing Corporation
Zanotti Co. of Virginia
Collection paralegal: Jeanine, 410 539 7814
We have more than 30 years of experience representing creditors, debtors, and trustees in matters before the Maryland bankruptcy courts, including
Motions for relief from the bankruptcy stay (11 U.S.C. Sec. 362)
Disputes concerning the use and sale of assets
Contested chapter 11 reorganization and chapter 13 payment plans
Suits to recover preferential and fraudulent transfers
Asset valuation disputes
Objections to the discharge of debts
Objections to creditor claims
Involuntary bankruptcy
An unpaid contractor or subcontractor who has made improvements to real property may obtain a mechanics lien on the property.
Under Maryland law, all newly erected buildings and existing structures that are repaired or improved to the extent of 15% or more of their value are generally subject to the establishment of a mechanics lien for the payment of debts for work done and materials provided for the building.
A subcontractor, in order to obtain a mechanics lien, must give the owner written notice of an intention to claim a lien within 120 days after doing the work or furnishing the materials. The written notice must be in the form set out in Sec. 9-104 of the Maryland Real Property Code Ann., and generally must be either personally delivered to the owner or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.
In order to establish a lien, the contractor or subcontractor must initiate proceedings by filing a petition in the circuit court for the county in which the real property is located, within 180 days after doing the work or furnishing the materials. After the petition is filed, the court issues an order which requires the owner to show cause why the mechanics lien should not attach. If the owner fails to respond to the show cause order, or fails to show cause why the lien should not attach, the court may enter a final order establishing a lien. If there is a legitimate dispute regarding the petitioner's entitlement to a lien, the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve the matter.
The law does not permit an unpaid subcontractor to place a mechanics lien on real property owned by a governmental entity. Instead, a subcontractor is limited to filing suit against any surety bond posted by the general contractor. The statute which sets forth the requirements for asserting a claim against a surety bond posted in connection with a federal construction project is known as the Miller Act. Maryland has enacted a similar statute, known as the Little Miller Act, which sets forth the requirements for asserting a bond claim arising out of a State owned construction project.