Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the grant of summary judgment dismissing an action to enforce an oral agreement to guaranty the debt of another on the ground that the agreement was barred by the statute of frauds. Sunshine Secretarial Services subleased office space from Accelerated Paving, Inc., and at times provided it with secretarial services. Accelerated Paving owed Plaintiff-Appellant Mickelsen Construction, Inc. money ($34,980.00) for providing asphalt to an Accelerated jobsite. Mickelsen threatened to file a materialmen’s lien against the real property on which the work was being done, and Accelerated's vice president asked that it not do so because that would delay the receipt of payment for the construction job. The vice president offered to pay the debt with an American Express credit card, but Mickelsen responded that it did not accept American Express credit cards. There was disagreement as to what happened next: Accelerate's vice president said there was not enough credit on the card to fund the payment, but when Accelerated received payment for the project it would pay down the balance so that there was enough credit to pay Mickelsen with the card. Mickelsen agreed not to file the lien if Accelerated could find someone to guaranty the payment by the credit card. Defendant-Respondent Lesa Horrocks of Sunshine agreed to do so and gave Mickelsen a check in the amount owed, drawn on Sunshine's account. Sunshine had a credit card machine that was capable of transacting with several credit cards including American Express credit cards. They told her that American Express had approved the transaction and asked her to use Sunshine credit card machine to run the transaction. It appeared to her that the transaction had been approved by American Express. issued the check. Several days later, Accelerated informed her that American Express had not approved the transaction. Accelerated then filed for bankruptcy. Mickelsen then sued Ms. Horrocks and Sunshine alleging that they had agreed to guaranty the credit card payment and so issued the check. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged guaranty was barred by the statute of limitations in Idaho Code section 9-505. In response, Mickelsen argued that the check was a sufficient writing under the statute of frauds and, if not, that the transaction was governed by Idaho Code section 9-506 and therefore exempt from the statute of frauds. The district court held that the check was an insufficient writing and that section 9-506 did not apply because the Defendants did not receive any direct benefit. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment dismissing this action. Mickelsen then appealed. Finding no error with the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mickelsen Const v. Horrocks" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a protracted contract dispute arising out of the construction of Meridian’s new City Hall. The City brought suit against the project’s construction manager, Petra, Inc., alleging that Petra breached the parties’ agreement in a number of ways. The City further claimed that Petra was not entitled to any additional fees for its work. Petra counterclaimed, seeking an equitable adjustment of its construction manager fee. After trial, the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling against the City on all but one of its claims and awarding Petra an additional fee for its services. The court awarded Petra $595,896.17 in costs and $1,275,416.50 in attorney fees, but stayed enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. The City appealed. Finding no error in the district court's judgment in favor of Petra, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Meridian v. PETRA Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff (HOA) was a condominium owners' association that brought suit on its own behalf and on behalf of its members against various individuals and corporations seeking damages arising from the alleged defective development, negligent construction, and misleading marketing of a condominium complex. The complex consisted of dozens of units owned by members of the HOA. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion to join all unit owners, denied the HOA's motion for a protective order, and certified six questions to the Supreme Court. The Court answered only one of the questions, finding it unnecessary to address the remaining questions, holding (1) a unit owners' association is an adequate representative when a lawsuit is instituted by a unit owners' association on behalf of two or more unit owners pursuant to the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act and the damages sought include unit specific damages affecting only individual units; and (2) this case should proceed in accordance with W. Va. Trial Court R. 26. View "Univ. Commons Riverside Home Owners Ass'n v. Univ. Commons Morgantown, LLC" on Justia Law

Circle D Contractors filed suit in district court to collect from the Bartletts money owed for the installation of a swimming pool. The district court ruled in favor of Circle D. The Barletts appealed. Circle D did not refile an additional complaint within thirty days, and the Barletts moved to dismiss Circle D's complaint as untimely. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Circle D had failed to strictly comply with the requirements of District Court Rule 9 by failing to timely refile its complaint in circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) only substantial compliance with the rule that a plaintiff refile its complaint in circuit court is required; and (2) Circle D substantially complied with rule 9 because all of its pleadings that were previously filed in district court were filed in circuit court, albeit by the Bartletts, and moreover, Circle D also refiled its complaint in circuit court. Remanded. View "Circle D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

Robert Mesteller brought suit to challenge Gwinnett County and its Board of Commissioners' (County) Solid Waste Ordinance. He appealed a superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County. Relying upon the Home Rule provision of the Georgia Constitution (among others), the County adopted the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Ordinance of 2010. Under the Ordinance, the County was divided into five zones, each to be serviced by a private waste management company. The County collected fees for the waste collection services through annual tax assessment notices, which it then remits to the five service providers, minus the service fee. Mesteller received a property tax bill that showed a fee for solid waste collection services. Acting pro se, he sued the County and the members of its Board of Commissioners, individually and as members of the Board, alleging the assessment and collection of the fee violated the Georgia Constitution. After notice and a hearing, the superior court granted the County's motion for summary judgment. Mesteller contended on appeal that the County was without authority to use the annual property tax bill to assess or collect fees for solid waste services because by contracting with private waste management companies to collect solid waste, the County was not, in fact, "provid[ing] solid waste collection services" within the meaning of OCGA 12-8-39.3 (a), and therefore not authorized to place the collection fee on the tax bill of a property owner or to enforce the collection of the fee as set forth in the statute. The Supreme Court concluded that Mestellar's argument "reveal[ed] a misunderstanding of the precedents of [the] Court." As such, the Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County. View "Mestellar v. Gwinnett County" on Justia Law

Construction Company contracted with Subcontractor for construction of elements of an HVAC system. As partial collateral for a revolving line of credit, Subcontractor assigned to Bank its right to receive payment under the contract with Construction Company. Construction Company instead made twelve payments to Subcontractor. Subcontractor subsequently ceased business operations, leaving an outstanding debt to Bank on its line of credit. Bank filed an action against Construction Company for breach of contract and violation of the UCC. A jury found (1) Construction Company liable on both counts for ten of the twelve checks that it had delivered to Subcontractor, and (2) Bank was estopped from recovering with respect to the final two checks. The judge entered judgment on the statutory claim in the amount of $3,015,000, the full face value of the ten checks. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial judge (1) properly entered judgment on Bank's statutory claim in the amount of the wrongfully midirected payments; but (2) erred in denying the bank's motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the final two checks, as there was insufficient evidence to support Construction Company's defense of estoppel. View "Reading Coop. Bank v. Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Defendants Stryker Biotech, LLC, Stryker Sales Corporation (collectively Stryker) and Turner Construction Company, appealed a superior court ruling which found them liable on a theory of unjust enrichment and awarded damages to the plaintiff, Axenics, Inc. f/k/a RenTec Corporation. Axenics cross-appealed, challenging the amount of damages awarded and the trial court's failure to find the defendants liable on its breach of contract and New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claims. This case arose from the construction of a biotech facility for Stryker for which Turner served as the general contractor. Axenics subcontracted with Turner to furnish labor, materials, equipment, and services for the installation of "process pipe" at the facility. A dispute arose when Axenics notified Turner of additional change orders related to delays and work that it believed to be outside the scope of the contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the subcontract addressed the subject matter of Axenics' unjust enrichment claim. The Court reversed the trial court's decision finding Turner liable to Axenics on its theory of unjust enrichment. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that Stryker accepted a benefit that would be unconscionable to retain. Therefore the Court held that the trial court erred in allowing Axenics to recover against Stryker under a theory of unjust enrichment. The Court found that an internal memorandum was admitted into evidence in error; the trial court erred in relying upon it in assessing damages. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision with respect to Axenics' CPA claims. The case was ultimately affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Axenics, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co." on Justia Law

In 2009, Respondents hired a construction company (Company) to construct a shooting range. Respondents paid Company's bills as the construction continued through the summer and fall. By September, Company had billed $48,810. Respondents paid $46,000 by October but then refused to pay anything further. Soon thereafter, Company quit the project, which was largely finished. The range opened for business soon after. At the end of the year, Respondents installed soundproofing to the building. In March 2010, Company recorded its mechanics lien. In August, Company filed a complaint against Respondents seeking to recover $40,000 in damages and costs. The district court held the lien was not timely and was therefore frivolous and ordered the lien released, ruling that the "work of improvement" of constructing the shooting range concluded more than ninety days before Company filed the lien. At issue on appeal was whether the soundproofing constituted a "work of improvement." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the soundproofing was not within the scope of the "work of improvement" or finding that the lien was untimely and frivolous. View "I. Cox Constr. Co. v. CH2 Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

Travelers moved to dismiss Postel's appeal of the district court's stay of Postel's lawsuit seeking payment from Travelers on a surety bond for work that it performed as a subcontractor. Postel brought its suit pursuant to the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. 3131 et seq. Travelers argued that Postel's appeal, which was not filed until fifty-five days after the district court's order, was untimely. Because Postel did not argue that the United States had any involvement in this case, but instead relied solely on the statutory requirement that it bring its Miller Act claim in the name of the United States, the court concluded that it was required to file its notice of appeal within thirty days under Rule 4(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States for the use and benefit of Postel Erection Group, L.L.C., et al v. Travelers Casualty and Surety, et al" on Justia Law

Matrix Construction Co. was a South Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in South Carolina. Matrix was the general contractor on a project to renovate schools in South Carolina. Matrix hired Contract Supply as a subcontractor. Contract Supply had a relationship with BlueTarp Financial, a company providing commercial credit to the construction industry that had its principal place of business in Maine. After Matrix accepted Contract Supply's bid, Matrix signed BlueTarp's account agreement, which stated that disputes would be governed by the laws of Maine. Matrix later learned that Contract Supply was not paying its suppliers and stopped paying Contract Supply. BlueTarp filed this action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the federal district court for the District of Maine invoking diversity jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Matrix. BlueTarp appealed, arguing that the forum selection clause in the account agreement authorized jurisdiction in the Maine district court and, in any event, Matrix had sufficient connections with Maine to satisfy the personal jurisdiction requirements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, having found the relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness factors satisfied, the district court had personal jurisdiction over Matrix. View "Bluetarp Fin., Inc. v. Matrix Constr. Co." on Justia Law