Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent, a contractor, and Appellant, a homeowner, entered into a contract under which Respondent agreed to install automation, sound, surveillance, and landscaping systems in Appellant’s residence. Respondent did not have an electrical contractor’s license when it bid the contract and began the work but did receive a license before it completed the work. When the parties disagreed on the performance of the contract, Appellant refused to tender further payment to Respondent, and Respondent filed a notice of lien against Appellant’s residence. Respondent filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, foreclosure of notice of lien, and declaratory relief, alleging that an electrical license was not required for the work performed on Appellant’s residence and that its lien was proper and perfected. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Respondent’s work on Appellant’s residence required a license and whether Respondent completed the contract in a workmanlike manner, thereby possibly negating Appellant’s obligation to make final payment under the contract. Remanded. View "Tom v. Innovative Home Sys." on Justia Law

In 2008, Mutual Bank (UCB’s predecessor) made loans to the investors to purchase three properties and agreed to loan the investors $700,000 for repairs and renovations. The $700,000 was placed in escrow, but the parties did not enter into a written escrow agreement. Once the investors exhausted other resources on repairs, they requested the $700,000, but never received the money. In 2009, the FDIC shut down Mutual Bank for gross negligence. UCB acquired Mutual’s loans and assets. The investors made repeated demands on UCB to release the $700,000 in escrow but did not receive the money. In 2010, UCB brought suit against the investors to foreclose on the properties and enforce related promissory notes and guarantees. The investors brought counterclaims, including a claim that UCB’s refusal to release the escrow funds constituted a breach of contract. The district court dismissed, citing the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, 12 U.S.C. 1823(e)(1)(A), and the Illinois Credit Agreement Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The escrow agreement that forms the basis for the counterclaim tends to diminish the interests of the FDIC and its assignee UCB. Since the agreement was not properly memorialized in writing, the agreement does not meet the requirements of section 1823(e). View "United Cent. Bank v. Davenport Estate LLC" on Justia Law

Hoover General Contractors – Homewood, Inc. ("HGCH"), appealed a circuit court order denying its motion to compel arbitration of its dispute with Gary Key regarding work performed by HGCH on Key's house in Jasper after that house was damaged by a fire. Six months after Key sued HGCH asserting claims stemming from HGCH's work rebuilding Key's house after a fire, HGCH moved the trial court to compel Key to arbitrate those claims pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract Key had entered into with HGCH. The trial court denied HGCH's motion to compel; however, that denial was error because Key failed to establish through substantial evidence that HGCH had waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the litigation process. Accordingly, the order entered by the trial court denying HGCH's motion to compel arbitration was reversed by the Supreme Court and the case remanded for the trial court to enter a new order compelling Key to arbitrate his claims ursuant to the terms of his contract with HGCH. View "Hoover General Contractors - Homewood, Inc. v. Key" on Justia Law

Defendant was a general contractor that builds “spec” houses (houses built without pre-existing construction contracts in anticipation of eventual sale to the public). On May 30, 2000, defendant and plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale agreement for a house. Although most of the construction had been completed, the agreement specified that defendant would make changes to the interior of the house. Specifically, defendant agreed to upgrade some of the flooring, install an air conditioning unit, and install a gas dryer in the laundry room. After defendant made those changes and the parties conducted a walk-through inspection, the sale closed on July 12, 2000. The primary question in this construction defect case was which of two statutes of repose applied when a buyer enters into a purchase and sale agreement to buy an existing home. Although each statute provided for a 10-year period of repose, the two periods of repose ran from different dates. One runs from “the date of the act or omission complained of;” the other ran from the date that construction is “substantial[ly] complet[e].” In this case, the trial court found that plaintiff filed her action more than 10 years after “the date of the act or omission complained of” but less than 10 years after the construction was “substantial[ly] complet[e].” The trial court ruled that the first statute, ORS 12.115(1), applied and accordingly entered judgment in defendant’s favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed. View "Shell v. Schollander Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

Picerne Construction Corp. agreed to build an apartment complex for Castellino Villas. After construction started, Castellino refinanced the property, replacing the original lender with Bank of the West. Picerne subsequently claimed money due, recorded a mechanic’s lien, and brought this action against Castellino and Bank of the West to foreclose on the lien. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Picerne. Castellino argued on appeal: (1) Picerne did not have a valid mechanic’s lien because it did not record its claim within 90 days after substantial completion of the project; (2) the doctrine of judicial estoppel prevented Picerne from taking contrary positions at arbitration and at trial; (3) Picerne did not timely record a claim of mechanic’s lien as to nine distinct buildings within the project; and (4) the trial court erred in calculating the amount of the lien. Bank of the West agreed that Picerne failed to timely record its claim of mechanic’s lien. In addition, Bank of the West contends (5) that Picerne’s complaint against it is time-barred because Picerne did not name Bank of the West as a defendant in the original complaint even though it was aware of facts indicating it had a claim against the bank. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded: (1) Picerne timely recorded its mechanic’s lien; (2) Castellino failed to demonstrate the applicability of judicial estoppel; (3) the property constituted one residential unit; (4) the trial court overstated the principal sum due and failed to subtract the $115,453.50 setoff from the principal sum, but the other claims of error with regard to the lien amount have no merit; and (5) the action against Bank of the West was not time-barred because Picerne timely substituted Bank of the West in place of a Doe defendant when Picerne learned of the bank’s interest in the property. The Court modified the judgment to provide that the mechanic’s lien was in the amount of $2,416,855.06 and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Picerne Construction v. Castellino Villas" on Justia Law

Church entered into an engineering contract with Civil Engineer (Engineer) to design site plans for a rain tank system. Church entered into a contract with General Contractor (GC) for the construction of the rain tank. After GC installed the rain tank, the tank collapsed. Engineer designed and GC installed a different storm water management system, but Church refused to pay GC for installing the new storm water system. GC sued Church for payment, and Church counterclaimed against GC for breach of contract. Church filed a third-party claim against Engineer for repair and replacement costs it was found to owe GC because of the rain tank collapse. Church filed a separate suit against Engineer. The circuit court concluded that the rain tank collapse was the failure of Engineer, entered judgment for GC on its claims against Church, and awarded Church damages for delay and other damages associated with removing and replacing the rain tank. Engineer appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Church’s claims timely and Engineer liable on Church’s breach of contract claims; and (2) reversed the circuit court’s judgment granting Church damages in the form of construction loan interest that was not incurred as a result of the breach of contract. Remanded. View "William H. Gordon Assocs. v. Heritage Fellowship, United Church of Christ" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Hub Construction, supplied rebar and other materials to the general contractor on a construction project on property owned by defendant, Esperanza Charities. At issue is whether a mechanic's lien is invalid because the plaintiff lienholder did not strictly comply with the then-effective statutory requirement governing proof that the preliminary written notice was served on the defendant property owner by certified mail. Esperanza stipulated that the notice was served by certified mail, that the U.S. Postal Service website tracking certified mail items showed the notice was delivered, and that defendant actually received the notice. However, Esperanza contends that the lien is invalid because Hub has no return receipt, and the applicable statute at the time required proof that notice was served. The trial court dismissed the case. The court reversed, concluding that, while strict compliance with the notice provisions of the mechanic's lien law is required, the applicable precedents do not require or justify applying that rule to the statutory provisions governing proof that the required notice was properly given. A stipulation eliminates the need for proof. View "Hub Construction Specialties v. Esperanza Charities" on Justia Law

Over the course of seven years, Circle C, a contractor that built 42 warehouses at Fort Campbell Army base, paid some electricians about $9,900 less than the Davis-Bacon (40 U.S.C. 3142) wages specified in its contract with the Army. The government obtained a damages award of $763,000 under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, arguing that all of the electrical work was “tainted” by the $9,900 underpayment and, therefore, worthless. The Sixth Circuit, reversed the damage award and remanded for entry of an award of $14,748. Actual damages are the difference in value between what the government bargained for and what the government received. The government bargained for the buildings and payment of Davis-Bacon wages. It got the buildings but not quite all of the wages. The shortfall was $9,916--the government’s actual damages. That amount tripled is $29,748 (31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(G)). Minus a $15,000 settlement payment, Circle C is liable for a total of $14,748. View "Wall v. Circle C Constr., LLC" on Justia Law

Demien, the unsuccessful bidder for the construction of a new firehouse, filed suit against the District under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District violated federal and state constitutional rights, as well as state law, in the bidding process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that it need only determine whether Damien has Article III standing under Federal law and not whether Damien has standing under Missouri law. Determining that Demien has Article III standing, the court concluded that Demien has abandoned its claims under the First Amendment by failing to argue them before the district court, and that Demien failed to allege that the District deprived Demien of any entitlement, and so it failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court concluded that, under Missouri law, there is no property right to the lowest bidder, and standing to bring a state court claim of deprivation of property rights does not establish a protected property interest. In this case, the District stated that it may accept the lowest bid, but does not need to. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Demien Construction Co. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law

Dannelly Enterprises, LLC ("Dannelly"), appealed a circuit court order granting a motion to compel arbitration filed by Palm Beach Grading, Inc. ("PBG"). In the fall of 2006, PBG entered into negotiations with Corvias Military Living, LLC, f/k/a Picerne Military Housing LLC; Picerne Construction/FRK, LLC; Rucker-Picerne Partners, LLC; and Rucker Communities, LLC (collectively, "the contractors"), to perform work on a project known as the Ft. Rucker RCI Family Housing, Munson Heights, Phase 1A, at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Apparently, in preparing to bid on the project, PBG contacted various subcontractors, including Dannelly, to get bids for various aspects of the project that PBG would be responsible for if it entered into an agreement with the contractors to complete the project. Although the work order issued by PBG stated that "[a] Sub-contract will be created by PBG for billing purposes," neither party submitted into evidence such a contract between PBG and Dannelly. PBG argued that Donnelly accepted benefits under existing contracts because Dannelly was hired by PBG to perform work on the project and was paid for the work it completed. The Supreme Court found, however, that PBG did not present any argument as to why it believed Dannelly was not simply operating under and benefiting from the agreement between PBG and Dannelly, which was memorialized by PBG's work order. The Court concluded that PBG failed to demonstrate that the arbitration provision in the master subcontract agreement applied to the third-party claims it asserted against Dannelly. Furthermore, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dannelly and PBG entered into PBG's standard subcontract agreement. The case was reversed and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Dannelly Enterprises, LLC v. Palm Beach Grading, Inc." on Justia Law