History
  • No items yet
midpage
Addison Urban Development Partners, LLC v. Alan Ritchey Materials Company, LC
437 S.W.3d 597
Tex. App.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Addison owned Meridian Square Project and contracted ForceCon for paving and related work; ForceCon batched concrete off-site at a batch plant and ordered aggregate materials (sand and 1"/1½" gravel) from Ritchey.
  • Ritchey supplied materials from July–Sept 2009 totaling $114,470.66, was not paid, served pre-lien notices, and filed lien affidavits identifying "concrete sand and related freight charges (including applicable fuel surcharges)."
  • Parties submitted joint stipulations and evidentiary exhibits to the trial court and agreed the remaining issues were legal questions about lien validity and amount.
  • Trial court entered judgment foreclosing Ritchey’s lien for $114,470.66 (plus interest and attorney’s fees); ForceCon defaulted and was separately liable.
  • Addison appealed, arguing (inter alia) materials were not "furnished" for the project, the lien should be limited to sand (excluding gravel, freight, fuel), retainage/withholding issues, and that the lien should be removed. The appellate court treated the case as an agreed (Rule 263) submission and reviewed legal questions de novo.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Addison) Defendant's Argument (Ritchey) Held
Were materials "furnished" for the Project? Excess quantities show materials were not furnished for this job; may have been used elsewhere or unused. Deliveries, invoices, delivery tickets, order numbers, and ForceCon acknowledgments show materials were delivered for the Project and known to be batched off-site. Held: Materials were "furnished." Stipulated delivery records and lack of contrary evidence support lien.
Did the lien affidavit sufficiently describe materials (sand vs. gravel)? Affidavit referenced "concrete sand and related freight" and therefore failed to perfect as to gravel. Affidavit need only substantially comply; notices and invoices expressly identified sand and rock and owner was not misled. Held: Substantial compliance satisfied; gravel covered and owner not prejudiced.
Are freight and fuel surcharges includable in the lien amount? Freight/fuel are not "materials" and should be excluded. Freight and fuel were components of the invoiced per-ton price (material + freight + fuel surcharge); fuel is consumed/delivered for prosecution of work. Held: Freight and fuel surcharges may be included; they are part of the delivered material price and fall within statutory definitions of materials/labor consumed or ordered for the work.
Motion to remove lien / retainage / attorney's fees Lien should be removed for failure to comply with §53.054 or duplicative affidavits; also argued retainage issues and that fees were unjust if underlying judgment improper. Ritchey complied with notice and affidavit requirements; retained funds were trapped; attorney's fees recoverable under the Property Code. Held: Motion to remove denied. Retainage issue not reached (but trapped funds admitted); attorney's fees affirmed as award was proper given valid lien.

Key Cases Cited

  • Lexicon, Inc. v. Gray, 740 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987) (materialman must prove goods were furnished for a specific job; invoices/delivery tickets can support lien).
  • Trammel v. Mount, 4 S.W. 377 (Tex. 1887) (statute liberally construed; furnishing materials need not mean actual incorporation into improvement).
  • Page v. Marton Roofing, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. 2003) (owner may withhold funds to protect against supplier claims).
  • Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for appellate review of legal issues).
  • Hunt Developers, Inc. v. W. Steel Co., 409 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1966) (legislature did not intend materialmen to lose liens on technicalities where owner not misled).
  • Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. v. Cathay Bank, 409 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (definitions of materials can include items delivered for consumption and not strictly those actually used).
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Addison Urban Development Partners, LLC v. Alan Ritchey Materials Company, LC
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jul 1, 2014
Citation: 437 S.W.3d 597
Docket Number: 05-13-00122-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.