Al Urbain Construction Management Company, Inc. v. CW Wolfe LLC
20-1627
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2022Background
- Al Urbain Construction Management Co. (AUCM) provided construction management services (not as a general contractor) on two projects for CW Wolff, LLC (CWW): a Selco building and the Devil’s Pit restaurant; there were no written contracts.
- Disputes arose over incomplete documentation, changing invoices, AUCM sending contractors directly to CWW, and which party paid certain contractors; lien waivers were obtained and projects completed.
- AUCM billed CWW for management fees (Ten percent for Devil’s Pit; six percent for Selco) and later added a request for $120/hr scouting fees; CWW disputed amounts and would not fully pay.
- AUCM sued for breach of contract/quantum meruit (filed June 2018); CWW counterclaimed for breach, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
- At bench trial the district court awarded AUCM $89,494.36 for Devil’s Pit, awarded CWW $83,050.51 for overpayments on Selco, offset the awards, and entered judgment for AUCM for $6,443.85. AUCM appealed and CWW cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AUCM) | Defendant's Argument (CWW) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selco project damages | AUCM says it was underpaid (billing shows deficit; AUCM entitled to 6% fee and additional amounts) | CWW says AUCM was overpaid; AUCM’s billing was inconsistent and not credible | Court credited CWW’s CPA accounting; AUCM’s Selco claims not proven; CWW awarded $83,050.51 |
| Devil’s Pit fee enforceability | AUCM says a 10% management fee was disclosed/approved (statement of probable cost, itemized budget) | CWW says no meeting of minds; no signed approval of fee | Court found sufficient evidence (budget with handwritten note) and credited AUCM; 10% fee enforceable |
| Amount owed for Devil’s Pit | AUCM produced exhibits showing unpaid contractor amounts and sought $89,494.36 | CWW’s CPA disputed but provided no supporting documentation | Court found substantial evidence for AUCM’s award of $89,494.36 |
| Additional $120/hr scouting fee | AUCM sought $120/hr for site scouting | CWW disputed existence of agreement to pay scouting fee | Court denied $120/hr claim—no agreement proved |
| Offset and final judgment | AUCM sought its full recoveries; CWW sought offsets for overpayments | Both parties sought damages on different projects | Court offset the two awards and entered judgment for AUCM for $6,443.85 |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Mortg. Ctr., L.L.C. v. Baccam, 841 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for breach-of-contract actions).
- Papillon v. Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2017) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to support judgment when reviewing factual findings).
- Tim O’Neill Chevrolet, Inc. v. Forristall, 551 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 1996) (district court best positioned to assess witness credibility).
- Van Oort Constr. Co. v. Nuckoll’s Concrete Serv., Inc., 599 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 1999) (appellate review focuses on whether substantial evidence supports trial court’s findings actually made).
- Est. of Hagedorn ex rel. Hagedorn v. Peterson, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004) (credibility determinations are peculiarly for the factfinder).