Bloedorn Lumber Co. v. Nielson
915 N.W.2d 786
Neb.2018Background
- In 2013–2014, contractor Jarrod M. Nielson installed granite countertops (and other work) in David and Candace Schilke’s home; countertops/materials were supplied by Bloedorn Lumber Co.
- A dispute arose over payment: Bloedorn sued Nielson and the Schilkes for unpaid materials; Nielson cross‑claimed against the Schilkes for unpaid labor/materials and unjust enrichment (and alleged breach of an oral contract).
- Both Nielson and Bloedorn filed construction liens; neither foreclosed on the liens.
- At a January 2016 bench trial, the district court found Bloedorn entitled to recover from Nielson for the materials, dismissed Bloedorn’s claim against the Schilkes, dismissed the Schilkes’ claims against Nielson, but awarded Nielson $11,551.89 against the Schilkes on unjust enrichment grounds (no explicit breach‑of‑contract ruling).
- The Schilkes moved for a new trial and appealed, challenging the unjust enrichment recovery, the availability of lien remedies, sufficiency of the evidence, and denial of their motion to transfer venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schilkes) | Defendant's Argument (Nielson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment recovery was improper because an express contract existed | Contract covers subject matter; unjust enrichment displaced | Even if a contract existed, Nielson partially performed and thus may recover quantum meruit | Court: Express contract can displace unjust enrichment, but partial performance permits quasi‑contract recovery; judgment for Nielson affirmed |
| Whether unjust enrichment recovery was barred because Nielson could have foreclosed on a construction lien | Construction Lien Act gives exclusive remedy; lienforeclosure precludes quasi‑contract recovery | Lien remedy is not exclusive; lienholder may also pursue common‑law remedies | Court: Construction lien does not preclude unjust enrichment recovery; assignment fails |
| Whether evidence supported finding of unjust enrichment | Schilkes contend they paid Nielson and thus were not unjustly enriched | Nielson testified he was unpaid; countertops increased property value; partial performance established | Court: Evidence supports finding of unjust enrichment; conflicts resolved for prevailing party; assignment fails |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying transfer of venue to Chase County | Case should be tried where residence is located; transfer warranted for convenience | Venue proper in Lincoln County (Nielson’s residence); inconvenience balanced both ways | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Par 3, Inc. v. Livingston, 268 Neb. 636 (action at law for breach of contract)
- City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., 282 Neb. 848 (limits on unjust enrichment where express contract applies)
- RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326 (partial performance permits recovery on quantum meruit)
- Tilt‑Up Concrete v. Star City/Federal, 261 Neb. 64 (construction lien does not preclude pursuing underlying debt action)
- Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819 (definition of final judgment)
- Lombardo v. Sedlacek, 299 Neb. 400 (abuse of discretion standard for venue transfer)