2019 ME 18
Me.2019Background
- John Sweet II (contractor) agreed orally with Carl and Elizabeth Breivogel to build a timber-frame home; no written contract was executed though construction began in April 2013.
- Parties communicated by email, Sweet billed biweekly, Breivogels paid materials and labor; they had different understandings—Sweet: weathertight/dried shell home; Breivogels: fully completed home for $275,000.
- Sweet completed the home (certificate of occupancy May 15, 2014); total billed $602,250.98, Breivogels paid $601,195.75; Sweet filed a lien for unpaid labor and sued for the remainder.
- Breivogels counterclaimed for negligence, breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied workmanship warranty, and a UTPA violation based on HCCA noncompliance (no written contract).
- Superior Court awarded Sweet quantum meruit recovery equal to the reasonable value of services (effectively what had been paid), reduced for a $640.77 overcharge; found Sweet violated the HCCA, which was prima facie a UTPA violation, and awarded Breivogels $3,832.43 costs and $30,000 in attorney fees; lien lost.
- On appeal, Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: Breivogels failed to prove fraud/negligent misrepresentation/breach of contract; quantum meruit recovery and UTPA remedies were correctly applied; attorney-fee award was reasonable and properly apportioned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Breivogel) | Defendant's Argument (Sweet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Breivogels proved fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of contract | Breivogels argued Sweet misled them about scope/cost and breached an agreement for a completed home | Sweet argued no written contract existed and parties had differing understandings; no actionable misrepresentations proved | Court: Breivogels failed to meet burden; findings supported that no express contract or fraud/negligent misrep was proved |
| Proper remedy when HCCA (no written contract) is violated—UTPA damages available? | Breivogels sought greater UTPA recovery because HCCA violation is prima facie UTPA violation | Sweet argued despite HCCA/UTPA violation, Breivogels received the value of services and thus no substantial UTPA loss | Court: HCCA violation is prima facie UTPA violation, but UTPA recovery requires demonstrated loss; Breivogels received value, so only modest restitution ($640.77) was warranted |
| Applicability of quantum meruit for contractor compensation | Breivogels contended no common understanding so quantum meruit inappropriate | Sweet argued parties’ conduct showed assent and reasonable expectation of payment for services rendered | Court: Quantum meruit appropriate; parties’ communications, invoices, site visits, and acceptance of work justified recovery for reasonable value of services |
| Scope and amount of attorney fees under UTPA | Breivogels sought full fees (over triple amount awarded), claiming all claims were intertwined with UTPA claim | Sweet argued fees must be apportioned to UTPA-related work; not all claims entitle fees | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; fees must be apportioned and award ($30,000) reasonable given limited degree of success and entwinement analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Gravison v. Fisher, 134 A.3d 857 (Me. 2016) (standard for appellate review of trial court fact findings)
- Young v. Lagasse, 143 A.3d 131 (Me. 2016) (burden of proof and review on counterclaims)
- Rice v. Cook, 115 A.3d 86 (Me. 2015) (appellate review of factual findings)
- St. Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C., 55 A.3d 443 (Me. 2012) (deference to trial court factual findings)
- Gordon v. Cheskin, 82 A.3d 1221 (Me. 2013) (unchanged factual findings where alternative supported)
- Paffhausen v. Balano, 708 A.2d 269 (Me. 1998) (quantum meruit elements and recovery when no formal contract)
- VanVoorhees v. Dodge, 679 A.2d 1077 (Me. 1996) (HCCA violations as prima facie UTPA violations)
- Parker v. Ayre, 612 A.2d 1283 (Me. 1992) (UTPA recovery requires demonstrable loss and failure to receive value)
- Tungate v. MacLean-Stevens Studios, Inc., 714 A.2d 792 (Me. 1998) (value received defeats broader UTPA recovery)
- Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 165 A.3d 357 (Me. 2017) (factors for assessing reasonable attorney fees)