356 P.3d 254
Wyo.2015Background
- Owner Alane Fraser hired M.J. Bishop Concrete & Construction (general contractor) to remodel a commercial building (Rafter J Café) in late 2010; Bishop subcontracted electrical work to Jackson Hole Electric (JHE).
- Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. (EWS) supplied materials to JHE, opened a job account, sent a pre-lien notice in November 2010, and supplied materials through 2011; JHE fell behind and owed EWS $18,495.94.
- Bishop paid JHE in full for its billed electrical work; Fraser paid Bishop in full; neither Bishop nor Fraser obtained lien waivers from EWS.
- EWS’s counsel mailed a pre-lien demand Nov. 16 / certified Dec. 6, 2011; EWS recorded a lien Dec. 22, 2011 and mailed notice of the lien Dec. 29, 2011.
- Circuit court granted Fraser summary judgment, declaring the lien invalid for failing to send owner notice within five days; it also denied EWS’s unjust enrichment claim after a bench trial. District court affirmed; Wyoming Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute governs owner notice of filing a lien (old §29-1-301(c) vs. new §29-1-312)? | EWS: the earlier statute (requiring notice “promptly”) applies because project began before July 1, 2011. | Fraser: new §29-1-312’s 5-day rule governs; EWS failed to comply. | Court: Old statute governs projects commenced before July 1, 2011; apply §29-1-301(c). |
| Was EWS’s Dec. 29, 2011 notice timely under §29-1-301(c)? | EWS: mailed notice “promptly” after filing; Rule 6(a) computation also supports timeliness given weekend/holiday. | Fraser: notice was after the 5‑day period and thus untimely under court’s earlier view. | Court: Dec. 29 notice was prompt under §29-1-301(c); lien invalidation was error — lien stands. |
| Did EWS comply with pre-lien notice obligations to put owner/GC on notice that EWS expected payment from them? | EWS: its Nov. 30, 2010 notice warned owner/GC that they risked payment or lien and to get lien waivers. | Fraser/Bishop: account was in JHE’s name, billed to JHE; no reasonable notice that owner/GC were expected payers. | Court: Although notice arguably informed owner/GC, resolution unnecessary — ruled on unjust enrichment grounds. |
| Was unjust enrichment established against Fraser or Bishop? | EWS: equitable recovery warranted because materials benefited the project and owner/GC should not retain benefit without paying. | Fraser/Bishop: they paid their contractors in full and thus were not unjustly enriched. | Court: No unjust enrichment — owner and GC paid JHE and therefore not liable; judgment for defendants affirmed on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Sunrise Home Ctr., 847 P.2d 1002 (Wyo. 1993) (unjust enrichment requires notice and benefit that in good conscience should be repaid by the party charged)
- Morris v. CMS Oil & Gas Co., 227 P.3d 325 (Wyo. 2010) (standard of review for bench trial findings and legal conclusions)
- Baker v. Speaks, 334 P.3d 1215 (Wyo. 2014) (summary judgment de novo review and construing evidence for opposing party)
- Horning v. Penrose Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 336 P.3d 151 (Wyo. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles and de novo review)
- Boyce v. Freeman, 39 P.3d 1062 (Wyo. 2002) (elements and equitable nature of unjust enrichment)