BCL Properties v. Boyle, 992 N.W.2d 440

Boyle hired BCL Properties as general contractor under a written construction contract for a residential renovation; disputes arose over extra work and payments and BCL stopped work.
BCL filed a construction lien and then sued Boyle for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and to foreclose the lien; Boyle counterclaimed for breach, misrepresentation, and UDTPA violations.
A jury returned verdicts for BCL on its breach claim for $193,037 and against Boyle on her counterclaims; the district court entered judgment and foreclosed the lien.
After verdict, the court held an evidentiary hearing and awarded prejudgment interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. §45-104 and attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. §52-157 (Nebraska Construction Lien Act).
Boyle moved for a new trial (challenging exclusion of two summary exhibits and the court's handling of a jury question) and to alter the judgment (challenging interest and attorney fees); the court denied relief and Boyle appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the prejudgment interest award but vacated the attorney fee award and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of summary exhibits E319/E320	Exclusion was final and prejudiced Boyle at trial	Trial court only gave preliminary ruling; Boyle could testify about the contents	Not preserved: court's pretrial/in limine ruling was not a final ruling and Boyle never offered the exhibits or made an offer of proof; no appellate review
Court's handling of jury question about calculating damages	Court erred by accepting verdict without answering jury question	Court intended to refer jury to written instructions; verdict reached before reply	Waived and not an abuse: Boyle failed to timely object; court's discretionary handling was not an abuse
Award of prejudgment interest under §45-104	Boyle argued no "money due" because amounts disputed	BCL argued the written contract is an "instrument in writing" and money was due under jury verdict	Affirmed: construction contract is an instrument in writing under §45-104; prejudgment interest available even if claim was disputed or not liquidated
Award of attorney fees under §52-157 (Construction Lien Act)	Boyle argued fees not authorized because no wrongful deprivation	BCL argued foreclosure and having to sue supported fees under §52-157	Vacated: §52-157 permits fees only when claimant is "wrongfully deprived" of benefits under the Act; mere necessity to foreclose or dispute over amounts is insufficient

Echo Group v. Tradesmen Internat., 312 Neb. 729 (2022) (interpreting §52-157 and holding attorney fees require a wrongful deprivation beyond mere foreclosure)
O'Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 (2017) (motion in limine rulings are preliminary; preservation requires offering the evidence or an offer of proof at trial)
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Greco, 211 Neb. 342 (1982) (contracts can qualify as instruments in writing under statutes allowing prejudgment interest)
Tilt-Up Concrete v. Star City/Federal, 261 Neb. 64 (2001) (contractor who received all benefits under the Lien Act cannot recover damages under §52-157)
Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (2019) (prejudgment interest under §45-104 may be awarded even when claims are disputed)