|
No. 128560
| H.A. Smith Lumber & Hardware Co., |
|
James R. Austin |
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Jourdan, J.) |
|
|
| John Decina, |
|
Anthony D. Rosati |
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| John Decina Development Co., |
|
|
Third Party Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Counter- |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Linas P. Gobis and Lydia K. Gobis, |
|
|
Defendants-Cross-Plaintiffs-Cross-Defendants- |
|
|
Counter Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| William Gardella d/b/a/ Williams Glass Co., |
|
Patrick A. Facca |
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Cross-Plaintiff- |
|
|
Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant John Decina and Third Party Defendant-Cross-Defendant-
Counter Plaintiff-Appellant John Decina Development Co.'s Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant John Decina and Third Party Defendant-Cross-Defendant-
Counter Plaintiff-Appellant John Decina Development Co.'s Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Cross-Plaintiff-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
In this multi-party residential contract dispute, the owners paid in full the general contractor, John Decina and John Decina Development Company. But Decina did not pay in full two subcontractors, H.A. Smith Lumber & Hardware Company and Williams Glass Company. Smith and Williams filed construction liens on the property under the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1118(2), and also sued, seeking to recover the unpaid balances. The trial court ruled that the subcontractors’ construction liens were valid but could not be enforced against the owners because the owners had already paid Decina, the general contractor, in full. Instead, the trial court ruled, Decina must pay Smith $9,233 and Williams $5,355 for breach of contract. The trial court also ordered Decina to pay Smith’s and Williams’ attorney fees; in later proceedings, the trial court clarified that it ordered payment of the fees pursuant to the Construction Lien Act, MCL 570.1118(2). That statute provides that the “court may allow reasonable attorneys’ fees to a lien claimant who is the prevailing party.” In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees to the subcontractors, and that such fees were properly awarded under the Construction Lien Act. Decina appeals, arguing in part that, because Smith and Williams recovered for breach of contract and not under the Construction Lien Act, the act’s attorney fee provision does not apply to them.
Top of Page
|
