The doctrine of substantial performance holds that a contractor’s breach of a construction contract does not entitle the owner to damages because the contractor’s performance was close enough to that which the contract required. “Technical violations are excused not because compliance [is] impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial. Substantial performance occurs when, although the conditions of the contract have been deviated from in trifling particulars not materially detracting from the benefit the other party would derive from a literal performance, [the other party] has received substantially the benefit [it] expected, and is, therefore, bound to perform.” United Concrete Prod., Inc. v. NJR Constr., LLC, No. CV176011932S, 2018 WL 5733720, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 17, 2018). The classic example of this doctrine is a situation where the contract specifies a product manufactured by Company A but the contractor provides the same product manufactured by Company B. Because the contract expressly stated that the product shall be manufactured by Company A, the installation of the same product manufactured by a different company is a breach of the contract. However, because the products are identical other than the name of the manufacturer,
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,
I am very excited to be joining Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP’s amazing team of highly sought-after construction litigation attorneys, and helping to expand the services that we can offer in Connecticut. With my move, I will continue to assist clients with any construction related issues – now with even more construction litigation resources.
Our team has decades of experience representing general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors, owners, design professionals and insurance carriers in all types of cases, including contract review and negotiations, risk avoidance counseling and strategy, emergency accident response, incident investigation, workers compensation, project overrun and change order disputes, construction defect and professional liability.
Our construction litigation team has tried cases and argued appeals in the state and federal courts across the United States. We have also appeared in various forums for arbitration, mediation and other kinds of alternative dispute resolution. Our team is often asked to monitor cases on behalf of excess carriers and is frequently called upon to “parachute” in to the most difficult cases at the last minute to act as trial counsel
Best of all, my blog will continue to provide insights and articles focused exclusively on Connecticut Construction Law.
As a disclaimer, I don’t recommend that contractors file their own mechanic’s liens without the aid of an attorney. Every client and/or potential client that has ever come to me asking that I foreclose a mechanic’s lien that they filed on their own had some fatal defect. The reason for that is the arguably conflicting laws in the statutes and in the court decisions interpreting those laws.
A prime example of something that is not readily apparent by reading the mechanic’s lien laws is the notice and service requirements. According to our courts, “[r]ead together, [Sections] 49-34 and 49-35 [of the Connecticut General Statutes] require the [contractor filing the lien] to serve a copy of the certificate upon each owner of the property within 90 days after he ceased performing services or furnishing materials.” Steeltech Bldg. Prod., Inc. v. Viola, 2000 WL 726367, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 16, 2000). Of course, one may not reach that same conclusion reading [Sections] 49-34 and 49-35 on their own. According to Connecticut General Statutes § 49-34, “[a] mechanic’s lien is not valid unless the person performing the services or furnishing the materials [records a certificate of mechanic’s lien in the land records] within ninety days after he has ceased to do so…” However,
Everyone knows that they ought to eat right and exercise; yet, far too few of us do it. Similarly, proper construction contract management requires a contractor to thoroughly understand their contracts but many fail to do so. Of course, the reason that contractors are often largely ignored are understandable. Most construction contracts have the same substantive provisions with which contractors are already familiar; the specific requirements for any given project will be discussed at the preconstruction meeting; and the more specific details of any contract tend to only really matter in the rare occasions that the parties end up in a dispute they cannot resolve on their own. However, the few instances that result in litigation may make having proper practices in place for every project worthwhile.
On a positive note, most contractors that I encounter are now reading their contracts before signing them, as opposed to only reading them after a problem develops. As obvious as this may sound, actually taking the time to thoroughly read a contract before a project begins is the only way to be certain that you will fully comply with all your obligations. In addition, reading a contract before signing can prevent a contractor from experiencing an unfortunate surprise.
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,
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.
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,
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.
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.