Bloedorn Lumber Co. v. Nielson
300 Neb. 722
| Neb. | 2018Background
- In 2013–2014 Nielson performed work on the Schilkes’ home, including arranging/obtaining granite countertops from Bloedorn Lumber for installation.
- After installation in May 2014, Nielson stopped working; parties dispute whether he was fired for poor workmanship or stopped for nonpayment.
- Both Nielson and Bloedorn filed construction liens; Bloedorn sued Nielson and the Schilkes; Nielson and the Schilkes filed cross-claims against each other.
- At bench trial, the district court found Bloedorn entitled to judgment against Nielson for the countertop cost, dismissed Bloedorn’s claim vs. the Schilkes, and dismissed the Schilkes’ fraud/unjust-enrichment counterclaim against Nielson.
- The court awarded Nielson $11,551.89 against the Schilkes on an unjust-enrichment/quantum meruit theory (no explicit breach-of-contract ruling), finding countertops increased the home’s value and that defects were not shown to reduce value.
- The Schilkes’ posttrial motion and venue-transfer motion were denied; they appealed, challenging (1) recovery in unjust enrichment despite an express contract, (2) availability of lien remedy, (3) insufficiency of unjust-enrichment evidence, and (4) venue denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nielson) | Defendant's Argument (Schilkes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment recovery was improper because an express contract existed | Nielson argued partial performance entitled him to quasi‑contract recovery (quantum meruit) when contract recovery was unavailable or limited | Schilkes argued an enforceable contract covers the subject, displacing unjust enrichment | Court: Allowed unjust enrichment as plaintiff partially performed and conferred benefit; contract does not bar recovery where substantial performance lacking |
| Whether filing a construction lien precludes unjust enrichment recovery | Nielson argued lien does not eliminate right to pursue common‑law restitutional remedies | Schilkes argued lien remedy meant unjust enrichment recovery was improper | Court: Lien does not preclude pursuing or recovering on unjust enrichment/quasi‑contract claims |
| Whether evidence showed the Schilkes were unjustly enriched | Nielson: countertops were installed, increased property value, and he was not paid | Schilkes: they paid (cited $30,000 check) and alleged transfer of benefit not proved | Court: Resolved factual conflict for bench winner (Nielson); evidence supported that Schilkes retained benefit and did not pay |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying venue transfer to Chase County | Nielson: trial in Lincoln County appropriate (residence/contacts) | Schilkes: case should transfer because residence is in Chase County and trial there is more appropriate | Court: No abuse of discretion; inconvenience to parties balanced and district court’s ruling upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Par 3, Inc. v. Livingston, 268 Neb. 636 (2004) (suit for damages from breach of contract is an action at law)
- City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., 282 Neb. 848 (2011) (express contract normally displaces unjust enrichment; plaintiff may plead both theories)
- Hooper v. Freedom Fin. Group, 280 Neb. 111 (2010) (bench trial factual findings carry weight of jury verdict; appellate review views evidence for successful party)
- Tilt-Up Concrete v. Star City/Federal, 261 Neb. 64 (2001) (mechanic’s lien does not preclude pursuing breach‑of‑contract remedy)
- RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326 (2016) (party who only partially performs may recover reasonable value of performance subject to offset for other party’s damages)