379 S.W.3d 890
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- July 9, 2009 RKMI agrees to perform foundation/construction work for an uninhabited residence for BMH at 2404 Red Bridge Rd.
- Written agreement with exhibits was introduced; BMH did not sign the agreement itself; Stark authorized on BMH’s behalf.
- Exhibit A describes RKMI's scope of work; Exhibit B specifies payment terms totaling $21,580.00, plus there is dispute over a $1,500.00 line item for “engineering report” (actually drawings) and an $80.00 permit fee.
- RKMI began work without a permit due to lack of contractor/residential licensing; Matthews used another contractor’s credentials to pull a permit later.
- Two unsigned change orders (Aug. 14, 2009 and Sept. 2, 2009) added work; Williams authorized the changes; not all work completed or passed inspection; disputes over quality and scope.
- RKMI filed a mechanic’s lien in Feb. 2010 claiming $13,255.00; May 2010 petition sought enforcement of the lien and Missouri Prompt Pay Act relief; trial court denied relief to RKMI and found noncompliance with lien statute and insufficient damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RKMI proved a contract breach by BMH. | RKMI entitled to payment for work performed; BMH’s defenses lack merit. | BMH disputed scope/quality; payment withheld for nonconforming work. | No; RKMI failed to prove entitlement to additional payment; evidence supported trial court’s finding of nonconforming work. |
| Whether RKMI’s lien statement was a “just and true account.” | Lien statement should be valid as a general contractor with lump-sum claim. | Lien statement lacked itemization required for a general contractor; several intentional misstatements. | Partially sustained; lien statement not a just and true account due to multiple defects; but the result remains denial of enforcement. |
| Whether the trial court erred by tying contract claim to lien validity. | Claims are independent of lien status. | Lien defects tainted contract claim adjudication. | Denied; court independently concluded RKMI failed to prove entitlement to any further payment. |
| Whether RKMI and BMH formed a contract despite unsigned documents. | Intention to contract shown by Stark’s testimony and conduct. | Unsigned documents undermine contract formation. | Contract found to exist; unilateral authorization for extra work supported by judgment. |
| Whether the lack of expert testimony on workmanlike performance invalidated claims. | B MH bore no burden to prove cost to cure; contract damages evident. | Quality of work insufficient without expert testimony. | Denied; RKMI bore burden to prove breach; court found insufficient evidence of workmanlike performance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vic Koepke Excavating & Grading Co. v. Kodner Development Co., 571 S.W.2d 253 (Mo. banc 1978) (burden of proving breach and damages in construction contracts; injured party bears burden unless defenses negate)
- Commercial Openings, Inc. v. Mathews, 819 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. banc 1991) (itemization requirements differ for general contractors vs subcontractors; ‘just and true account’ standard)
- Dave Kolb Grading, Inc. v. Lieberman Corp., 837 S.W.2d 924 (Mo.App. E.D.1992) (lien statement mistakes may be inadvertent if not deliberate to defraud)
- Mississippi Woodworking Co. v. Maher, 273 S.W.2d 753 (Mo.App.1954) (early lien accounting principles cited for itemization requirements)
- Missouri Land Development Specialties, LLC v. Concord Excavating Co., 269 S.W.3d 489 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (nonlienable items and ability to separate from lienable items; good faith errors in lien)