Under Louisiana Payment Act, Once Contractor Meets Contractual Requirements for Final Payment, Public Entity Has a Duty to Issue Final Payment and Has No Discretion to Withhold Payment Based on a Separate Claim Against Contractor

Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd.,  2018 La. App. LEXIS 762 (April 18, 2018)

The Orleans Parish School Board (“OPSB”) awarded a prime contract to Woodrow Wilson Construction (“WWC”) for the construction of a new elementary school (the “Project”).  On May 23, 2016, WWC submitted its request for payment of final retainage to OPSB.  OPSB withheld payment from WWC, claiming that WWC owed liquidated damages for the delays in completion of the Project, which allegedly exceeded the amount due to WWC.  WWC filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to La. R.S. 38:2191(D) (the “Act”), which provides that “[a]ny public entity failing to make any … any final payment when due as provided in this Section, shall be subject to mandamus to compel the payment of the sums due under the contract …”  The trial court denied the petition and WWC appealed.  The question on appeal was whether OPSB may withhold final payment due under the Act because of alleged delays in the Project, despite the fact that liability for the delays had not yet been adjudicated.

Section A of the Act provides that “[a]ll public entities shall promptly pay all obligations arising under public contracts when the obligations become due and payable under the contract.  All … final payments shall be paid when they respectively become due and payable under the contract.”  Under the prime contract, retainage was due upon the occurrence of six enumerated requirements.  The Court determined that these requirements were all satisfied as of May 23, 2016 and therefore final retainage was due to WWC as of that date.  The Court further found that upon satisfaction of these requirements, the public entity owed a ministerial duty to issue final payment.  By providing the right to mandamus relief in the Act, the legislature intended to eliminate the public entity’s discretion to withhold payment from a contractor.  Continue reading “Under Louisiana Payment Act, Once Contractor Meets Contractual Requirements for Final Payment, Public Entity Has a Duty to Issue Final Payment and Has No Discretion to Withhold Payment Based on a Separate Claim Against Contractor”

Void Means Void – Municipal Contract That Did Not Conform to Statute Is Void and No Claim for Breach or Quasi-Contract or Unjust Enrichment Is Permitted

Aquatic Renovations Sys. v. Vill. of Walbridge, 2018 Ohio App. Lexis 1581 (April 13, 2018)

This post was published on July 7, 2018 in The Pennsylvania Record.

On May 2, 2012, Aquatic Renovations Systems, Inc. (“Aquatic”) entered into a contract with the Village of Walbridge (“the Village”) for the installation of a new pool liner (“Contract 1”).  Prior thereto, the Village council adopted an ordinance which authorized the mayor to enter into Contract 1 (“Ordinance”).  On April 12, 2013, the mayor signed a new contract for the balance of the work (“Contract 2”).  A few days after Aquatic completed its work, the pool liner began to lift.  The Village then refused to pay Aquatic for the completed and approved work.

Aquatic sued the Village for non-payment, alleging the Village breached Contract 2.  Aquatic also alleged that the Village was liable under a theory of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.  The trial court granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Contract 2 was not valid because it did not comply with the Ohio Revised Statute which required the mayor, the clerk, and the Village administrator to authorize all Village Contracts.  Thus, because Contract 2 was unenforceable, Aquatic could not recover under a breach of contract, quantum meruit or unjust enrichment theory.    Continue reading “Void Means Void – Municipal Contract That Did Not Conform to Statute Is Void and No Claim for Breach or Quasi-Contract or Unjust Enrichment Is Permitted”

Nevada Supreme Court Rules That Arbitration Clause in Common-Interest Community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Binds Homeowners  

United States Home Corp. v. Ballesteros Trust, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 28 (Nev. Apr. 12, 2018)

United States Home Corporation (“U.S.H.”) built homes in a Nevada common-interest community, subject to a Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions agreement (“CC&R”), which provided that any dispute would be resolved by arbitration.

Between August 2013 and February 2015, twelve home purchasers filed pre-litigation notices against U.S.H. for alleged construction defects.  Three of the purchasers had direct purchase and sales agreements with U.S.H. that contained arbitration clauses; the remaining homeowners did not sign such agreements, but took title subject to the CC&R.  U.S.H. demanded arbitration, but the homeowners brought claims in a Nevada district court seeking damages for breach of contract and other claims.  U.S.H. moved to compel arbitration.  The court held that the transaction did not involve interstate commerce, so the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) did not apply, and invalidated the arbitration agreements as unconscionable. Continue reading “Nevada Supreme Court Rules That Arbitration Clause in Common-Interest Community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Binds Homeowners  “