Connection construction law attorney Archives - Attorney Scott S. Orenstein

Most Construction Disputes Do Not Involve Unfair Trade Practices

Generally speaking, the legal profession is not currently held in high esteem. In my opinion, there are a couple of reasons for this situation. First, I believe that the general public does not fully understand the adversarial process used in our legal system or the reasons why lawyers are allowed to “argue in the alternative,” which, in normal parlance, would negatively be referred to as talking out of both sides of your mouth. Second, the negative public opinion is (unfortunately) deserved by virtue of how some attorneys approach their cases.

Attorneys that draft complaints that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of the facts hurt themselves and the legal profession as a whole. I once received a complaint that was far beyond the pale because, in a case where a subcontractor asserted a claim for nonpayment, the attorney not only alleged breach of contract, but also asserted a human rights violation against my client because the subcontractor was a Minority Business Enterprise (“MBE”) and my client was allegedly a racist. Of course, my African American client and I had a good laugh when I called to let her know that she was being accused of being a racist. (Practice tip to new attorneys: If you are going to make a claim based upon race,

A RECENT APPELLATE DECISION THAT PURPORTS TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF “CARDINAL CHANGE” ACTUALLY ONCE AGAIN DEMONSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF NEGOTIATING A FAIR CONTRACT

Change order provisions, which appear in most constructon contracts and contemplate changes being made to the work, contradict a fundamental premise of contract law. Specifically, in order for there to be a legally enforceable agreement, “there must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds.” C.A.D.S., LLC v. Sundance Realty, LLC, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 29, *25 (July 2, 2018). A contract is supposed to be “based on an identical understanding of the parties.” Id. at *25-26. Yet, as anyone in construction is aware, the project owner may order changes during the performance of the work that the contractor is contractually bound to perform, subject to appropriate adjustments in monetary compensation and the time to complete the work.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are limits in an owner’s ability to order changes in the work, because the owner is not allowed to require a contractor to perform “cardinal changes.” “A ‘cardinal’ change is a change outside the general scope of the contract.” Philip L. Bruner & Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law § 4:13. The significance of a cardinal change is that it is not covered by a standard change order provision.

HERE’S AN UPDATE ON THE EFFECT OF PRIOR RULINGS ON SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION

In a prior post, this blog explained how the Supreme Court held that an owner’s claims against subcontractors were barred because they were either brought or could have been brought in the owner’s prior arbitration against the general contractor. Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc., 332 Conn. 67, 71 (2019). The court ultimately determined that the contractual relationship between a general contractor and its subcontractors was sufficient to determine that they were “sharing the same legal right.” Therefore, “the rule of claim preclusion,” which prevents the re-litigation of a claim once the claim has had a full and fair hearing “regardless of what additional or different evidence or legal theories might be advanced in support of it,” applied in this case even though the subcontractors did not participate in the arbitration. Id. at 75.

Girolametti involved a situation where the dispute between the owner and general contractor included claims that the work performed by subcontractors was defective. Although the subcontractors were not parties to the arbitration, they were no doubt happy with the result and more than willing to have that decision applied to the owner’s subsequent lawsuit against them.

In my prior post,

Scott Orenstein
04.26.2020
Construction Attorney, Construction Contract Damages, Construction Law, Contract Law, mechanic's lien
0 Comment

Connecticut’s Procedure for Substituting a Bond for a Mechanic’s Lien Needs to be Changed

The purpose of a mechanic’s lien is to provide collateral for a contract debt. If you perform work on a project and are not paid, then the mechanic’s lien laws allow you to attach the property where the work was performed. In other words, a mechanic’s lien provides you with a property right you can foreclose in the same manner a bank can foreclose a mortgage. However, before you can force a sale of the property to collect your money, you have to prove you are entitled to the payment you claim. Therefore, a mechanic’s lien could be in place a long time.

Because the lien laws are intended to provide security for a debt, but are not intended to prevent the property from being transacted, most states, including Connecticut, have a procedure by which a surety bond can be substituted for a mechanic’s lien. The problem with Connecticut’s procedure is that it is too long and cumbersome.

While a mechanic’s lien is in place, a property cannot be refinanced, or sold – at least not without addressing the mechanic’s lien to a lender’s and/or buyer’s satisfaction. It is possible that the property might be refinanced or sold if the owner places the lien amount in escrow,

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU ARE NOT BEING PAID

The most common issue I confront as a construction attorney is what to do when my client is not being paid. The standard approaches include sending a demand letter, making a demand for disputed funds to be placed in escrow in accordance with the prompt payment statute, and, of course, filing mechanic’s liens and/or bond claims. The larger issue becomes what to do when my client can no longer to perform its work without payment.

As a general rule, a contractor is better off completing its work, and then fighting about the monies due, as opposed to walking off the job. While it is true that there are Connecticut cases which hold that a contractor is excused from finishing its work if progress payments are not made when due, but reliance on such cases is fraught with potential problems.

If you ever forced to litigate, you want to be viewed as the one wearing the white hat. You want to be the injured party that is as pure as the driven snow. If at all possible, you do not want to give the other side any arguments to raise. Thus, if you walk off the job for nonpayment,

Remedial Work Does Not Extend the Deadline to Commence an Action on a Payment Bond

As most contractors are aware, if they are not paid for their labor, materials, and/or services, they can strengthen their position prior to filing a lawsuit by filing a mechanic’s lien, or by making a claim against the project’s bond claim. Of course, both options are not generally available. Typically, the choice is based upon whether the project is private or public. On private projects, a contractor (or supplier) is allowed to gain a security interest in the property by filing a mechanic’s lien. On public projects, federal and local governments passed laws requiring the general contractor on public projects to post “payment bonds,” which guarantee the payment of those who supply labor, materials, and/or services to the property. In other words, because governments were not willing to let public lands be subject to foreclosure, on public projects, statutorily required payment bonds were created to take the place of mechanic’s liens. Of course, private owners may require general contractors to post payment bonds on private projects as well, but this post only addresses the statutory payment bonds required on public projects.

The law that requires payment bonds on federal projects is known as the Miller Act. The various state laws that require payment bonds on state projects are often referred to as “Little Miller Acts.” The requirements are the Miller Act and the various Little Miller Acts are generally similar.

A Recent Superior Court Decision May Affect Subcontractor/Supplier Mechanic’s Liens

In a recent decision, the Superior Court discharged the mechanic’s liens of several subcontractors, because the general contractor had already filed a lien for the unpaid contract balance. Wegrzyniak v. Hanley Constr., LLC, WL 5706192 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2017). Insofar as any substantial construction project will involve a general contractor, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and suppliers, there are obviously many potential lien claimants. Nonetheless, the court said that “[f]or good reasons, the mechanic’s lien statutes don’t permit multiple liens,” and with regard to the subcontractor whose lien included a claim for extra work, the court said that “[w]ithout an agreement to support the additional work…, [the subcontractor’s] lien must be discharge.” Id. In light of the foregoing, Wegrzyniak may stand for the proposition that subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and/or suppliers are precluded from filing mechanic’s liens when the general contractor files a mechanic’s lien covering the entire project, but, in my opinion, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and suppliers should continue filing their own mechanic’s liens.

To summarize the reasoning of the Wegrzyniak decision in plain English, because the court understood that the property owner should not be held liable for more than the amount it agreed to pay the general contractor,

Slander of Title is Almost Always an Inappropriate Response to a Mechanic’s Lien

On rare occasions, I have had to contend with a claim of “slander of title” being filed in response to a mechanic’s lien. A slander of title claim requires:

The making of a false statement pertaining to the owner’s title;

The making of the false statement must have been made “with malice”; and

The false statement must result in actual damages.

Neri Corp. v. McDermott Rd., LLC, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2067, *18 (Conn. Super., July 26, 2016). The requirement for the statement to have been made “with malice” means that the lienor either had acknowledged that the statements in its mechanic’s lien were false or that the lienor acted with “a reckless disregard of the truth.” Id. Both are very unlikely in the context of a mechanic’s lien.

As stated previously in this blog, the purpose of a mechanic’s lien is to provide security for an alleged debt arising out of work performed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the “[f]iling of a mechanic’s lien like that of any other lien can be the basis of a slander of title action as long as all of the elements of the tort are met.” Id.

Recent Decision Demonstrates the Importance of Complying with Contract Notice Provisions

A common provision in construction contracts requires a contractor to give notice to the owner within a certain number of days of an event giving rise to a claim. Such provisions have a reasonable basis insofar as they ensure an owner will have a reasonable opportunity to investigate the conditions for which a claim for additional compensation is being made. Traditionally, such notice provisions were not strictly enforced. The general approach seemed to be that — provided the owner was not prejudiced by any delay in giving notice of claim — a claim that was not submitted within the specified time limit would not be barred. The more recent trend, however, has been to more strictly construe such provisions.

In J. Wm. Foley, Inc. v. United Illuminating, the Appellate Court held that the contractor’s failure to submit its delay claim within the ten-day time limit specified by the contract was a bar to the claim. This decision is potentially troublesome for a couple of reasons: First, there is no reference to the owner suffering any prejudice as a result of the delay. Second, the decision indicated that the submission of the delay claim required a critical path analysis of the delay.

There’s a New Proposed Law Regarding Emergency Services That Everyone Should Support

Parties are free to enter into contracts with any terms and conditions to which they both agree — but that right is not absolute. Certain contract terms are void by statute or case law based upon public policy considerations. For example, in Connecticut, the General Statutes do not allow contractors to prospectively waive their mechanic’s lien rights and the General Statutes do not allow contracting parties to have another state’s laws govern a dispute arising out of a construction project within Connecticut. However, the most onerous example of a statute that potentially voids an otherwise enforceable contract is the Home Improvement Act.

As previously discussed here, the Home Improvement Act can lead to unfair results. As upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court, any contract that does not contain certain elements required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-429 is unenforceable and the contractor that enters into such an agreement with an owner may also be held liable for a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Under the terms of the Home Improvement Act, a contract that does not include notice of cancellation rights violates the statute. Thus, the owner of any home improvement project must be allowed three business days to cancel a home improvement contract after it is executed.

Scott Orenstein
02.21.2017
Connecticut Construction Law, Construction Attorney, Construction Law, Contract Law, Home Improvement Act
0 Comment

Categories

Recent Posts