C & R Electric, Inc. v. Terrance Raymond Johnson
73464-4
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2017Background
- Terence R. Johnson owned commercial property in SeaTac where an unpermitted freestanding paint booth required electrical work and an electrical permit.
- C & R Electric (licensed and bonded) met with Johnson in April 2013 and agreed to obtain the permit and perform the work on a "time and materials" basis; C & R completed the booth work and obtained final approval.
- During the same period, copper theft damaged the property's electrical service; Johnson requested C & R repair those unrelated electrical damages and C & R performed the repairs.
- C & R issued four invoices totaling $7,506.30 ($3,880.29 for the paint booth work; $3,626.01 for unrelated electrical repairs) and later recorded a mechanics’ lien when Johnson failed to pay.
- C & R sued for breach of contract and lien foreclosure; the trial court granted summary judgment for C & R, entered judgment for the unpaid principal and interest, awarded a lien for the unrelated repairs, and awarded $20,000 in attorney fees plus costs.
- Johnson appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact about formation and amount owed, and challenging the attorney-fee award; the Court of Appeals affirmed and held Johnson failed to preserve his fee objections for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (C & R) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that Johnson agreed to contract with C & R | No verbal or written agreement on price or terms; no specific meeting agreement to time-and-materials | Gartin's declaration: April 2013 meeting where Johnson agreed to time-and-materials; invoices sent and work proceeded | No genuine issue; summary judgment for C & R affirmed (time-and-materials contract enforceable even without fixed hourly price) |
| Whether amount owed for copper-wire/repair work is contested | Some invoice items may relate to booth; disputes over items and amounts | Gartin declared one invoice was exclusively for the unrelated service repair and Johnson accepted invoices and requested the repair | No genuine factual dispute as to that invoice; Johnson failed to rebut C & R's statements |
| Whether work on the paint booth constituted an improvement subject to lien | (Johnson) For appeal the court of appeals notes trial court found a factual issue on whether booth work improved real property — limiting lien scope | (C & R) Sought lien foreclosure for work performed; asserted entitlement for unpaid work | Trial court awarded lien only for unrelated electrical repairs; court of appeals affirmed that division based on factual issues about improvement |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in awarding $20,000 attorney fees and failed to properly calculate/segregate fees | Fees allegedly unsupported by lodestar detail, no findings, no segregation between lien and non-lien fees | C & R submitted counsel declaration stating rates and total fees; Johnson did not object below to rates or lack of detail | Fee challenges were not preserved; appellate court declined to consider new fee objections and allowed C & R to seek reasonable appellate fees related to lien foreclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaupre v. Pierce County, 161 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2007) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 1997) (summary judgment procedural standards)
- Fulton v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 169 Wn. App. 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (consideration of facts and inferences for summary judgment)
- Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm't Co., 106 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 1986) (party opposing summary judgment must produce specific facts)
- Draper Mach. Works, Inc. v. Hagberg, 34 Wn. App. 483 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983) (fee issues cannot be raised for first time on appeal)