Homeowners on hook in fight over McBride Homes?

ST. LOUIS COUNTY혻�� A fight between McBride Homes and a Chesterfield contractor could cost homeowners thousands of dollars each if a judge determines the homebuilder violated state law, according to several new lawsuits filed in area courts.

Construction company Builder's Bloc says in court documents that McBride Homes fraudulently filed dozens of false real estate records over the past year in St. Charles, Jefferson and Franklin counties. Builder's Bloc claims the filings were part of an effort by McBride혻to stiff the contractor of over $10 million for unpaid work after their relationship soured.

Lawsuits filed by Builder's Bloc across the three counties last week, and detailed in a related 51붚죕 County suit, claim homeowners who bought McBride houses could be liable to pay those bills if a judge rules McBride knowingly filed fraudulent records in those counties.

Altogether, Builder�셲 Bloc alleges McBride�셲 actions involve more than 400 homes across five counties in the region.

�쏧nnocent homeowners are swept up in McBride�셲 scheme and will face claims against their newly purchased homes for debts McBride failed to pay and concealed from the homeowners at the time they closed on their dream homes and paid millions of dollars to McBride,�� the company says in court documents.

The allegations imply that Builder's Bloc will file liens against the houses, now owned by the homeowners, in order to recoup the debts owed.혻

The suit comes in the middle of a legal battle with McBride. McBride fired Builder's Bloc in January, then sued on April 11, alleging the contractor delayed home sales and caused McBride to lose $13 million, according to its suit.

A lawyer for McBride said this week that Builder's Bloc's suits are retaliation for being fired.

�쏮cBride will take all necessary steps to protect our customers, at no cost to those homeowners,�� JoAnn Sandifer, the company's attorney, said in a statement. �쏮cBride is confident it will prevail.��

McBride said in court filings that the Builder's Bloc's suits will cause "irreparable damage" to McBride's business and reputation.

The companies didn't always have a contentious relationship.혻

'Confidentiality was no longer an option'

Builder's Bloc was part of the McBride company until the homebuilder spun off the contractor as an independent company혻in 2014.혻The homebuilder, one of the most prolific in the region, and Builder's Bloc have worked together for years on various subdivisions across the region.

But the relationship began to fracture as McBride claimed Builder's Bloc failed to adhere to schedules �쐆undreds of times�� over the past five years and that the contractor frequently prioritized work for other companies, McBride says in its suit.

Still, Chesterfield-based McBride renewed its contract with Builder's Bloc in 2024. And that contract, McBride says in court filings, gives it the right to withhold money from Builder's Bloc for "failure to perform."

But, as disputes over pricing and schedules escalated,혻McBride CEO혻Jake Eilermann fired the company in January of this year, McBride's suit says.

The companies were slated to handle their disputes in arbitration before McBride sued last month in 51붚죕 County Circuit Court, alleging the contractor owes it the $13 million, for increased costs, lost profits and attorneys' fees. McBride says in court documents that Builder's Bloc threatened to file liens against homeowners that would make the dispute public.

"At that point, it became clear that confidentiality was no longer an option," McBride says in its suit, "so there was no reason for McBride not to pursue all claims together in litigation."

McBride alleges delays caused by Builder's forced it to push back closing dates, leading to the lost profits.

Builder's Bloc filed its countersuit on April 28 in 51붚죕 County, and the related suits in the other counties shortly thereafter.

Its allegations center on real estate documents called �쐍otices of intended sale.��

Suits allege fraud

The documents notify contractors that an owner plans to sell a property in at least 45 days. The contractor then has up until five days before the sale closes to file liens for unpaid work �� or else it loses the right to do so.

But Builder�셲 Bloc alleges that McBride filed the notices with closing sale dates that the builder either didn�셳 share with the contractor or were different �봡ated weeks earlier �� than the dates McBride provided to Builder's.

In many cases, McBride wouldn�셳 post the sale notices on a job site until just days before the 5-day deadline, the suits claim.

That meant, the suits say, Builder's would have much less time to file liens claiming they were owed money.혻

McBride claims in its suit that it posted notices of sale. And it didn't have to tell Builder's if those dates changed, it says.

But Builder's says in its suits that McBride was telling homebuyers one thing �� a �쒋�� the company provides to customers says McBride will build the home in 12-20 weeks �� while filing sale notices with closing dates that were less than 12 weeks.

The Builder�셲 Bloc suits details 50 instances across the region where McBride allegedly filed erroneous sale notices, including:

On Vardon Meadows Drive in Union, McBride filed a sale notice in September with a closing date of Dec. 2. But the company didn�셳 acquire the title to the land until November and didn�셳 sell the property to a buyer until February.
On Martingale Lane in Eureka, McBride filed a sale notice in August혻with a closing date of Oct. 14. But McBride didn�셳 acquire title to the land until Sept. 6 and didn�셳 actually sell to homebuyers until March 12.
On Harrow Drive in O�섺allon, McBride filed a sale notice in August with a closing date of Oct. 14. But the company didn�셳 issue purchase orders, including for foundation work, to Builder�셲 Bloc until Oct. 18, and didn�셳 acquire title to the land until Oct. 21. It sold the home in February.

In nearly all 50 examples, McBride filed purchase orders with Builder�셲 Bloc on the same dates it filed the notice of sale documents, the suits say. At least half were filed on properties McBride did not yet own and nearly a quarter had no �쐀ona fide�� buyer, a key requirement to state notice-of-sale rules.

The title company should have known that Builder's hadn't gotten paid, the suits say.혻

But McBride encouraged homebuyers to use McBride�셲 own title company, Home Title, the suits say. And Home Title had no financial incentive to disclose that McBride did not pay all contractors, the suits continue.

�쏤amilies who purchase homes and the contractors and suppliers who build them all rely upon the truth and accuracy of the public documents recorded by developers," Builder's Bloc attorney Stephen Miller said in a statement. �쏷hese lawsuits have been filed to make certain no one is deceived or misled by false information.��

Sandifer, the McBride attorney, said McBride followed the law.혻

�쏝uilder�셲 Bloc�셲 accusations in its latest filing serve only to divert attention from the facts,�� she said, �쐗hich clearly demonstrate that they did not follow the very same law that McBride meticulously followed to protect homebuyers.��

Last week, a 51붚죕 County Circuit Court judge ruled that a mediator would determine whether the case will be decided by the judge or in arbitration.혻

But the three lawsuits filed in혻St. Charles, Jefferson and Franklin counties, which could determine whether McBride filed false notices of sale, are expected to continue through the courts.