South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. Brian T. McMahon
116 A.3d 204
| R.I. | 2015Background
- Homeowners Brian and Karen McMahon hired general contractor Heinz Construction to build a house and barn; South County Post & Beam (plaintiff) was subcontracted to build the roof and timber frame.
- Plaintiff invoiced Heinz Construction for work (including extra roof-tower work not memorialized in a change order); most invoices were addressed to Heinz. Plaintiff received two payments from Heinz and one direct payment from the McMahons. Parties agreed unpaid invoices totaled $41,549.45.
- Plaintiff sued the McMahons for breach of contract, book account (withdrawn), and unjust enrichment; defendants counterclaimed but later dismissed counterclaims. Bench trial followed; the trial justice found no contract between plaintiff and defendants but found unjust enrichment and awarded $41,549.45.
- Plaintiff sought taxation of costs including an expert witness fee ($1,365.20); the trial justice awarded all requested costs. Defendants appealed both the unjust-enrichment judgment and the costs award.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the unjust-enrichment judgment but vacated and remanded the costs award, holding the expert witness fee was not taxable under controlling statutory and precedent rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can recover value of work from homeowners via unjust enrichment/quantum meruit | Plaintiff: Even absent privity with homeowners, it conferred a benefit the McMahons appreciated and it would be inequitable for them to retain value without paying | Defendants: Plaintiff had an adequate remedy against Heinz (its contracting party); allowing recovery against homeowners unfairly makes owners liable for subcontractor claims | Court: Affirmed judgment for plaintiff; elements of unjust enrichment/quantum meruit satisfied and absence of direct contract with homeowner does not bar recovery where equities favor plaintiff |
| Whether expert witness fee is taxable as costs | Plaintiff: Trial justice has discretion under general costs statutes to allow the expert fee as a taxable cost | Defendants: § 9-17-22 prohibits taxation of expert fees above ordinary witness fees, which controls over general costs statutes | Court: Vacated costs order and remanded — expert fee cannot be taxed as costs under controlling law and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Emond Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. BankNewport, 105 A.3d 85 (R.I. 2014) (elements and equity-based balancing for unjust enrichment)
- Process Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. DiGregorio, Inc., 93 A.3d 1047 (R.I. 2014) (distinction and overlap between unjust enrichment and quantum meruit; recovery for reasonable value of services)
- JPL Livery Services, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Administration, 88 A.3d 1134 (R.I. 2014) (standard of review for trial-justice findings in bench trials)
- Dellagrotta v. Dellagrotta, 873 A.2d 101 (R.I. 2005) (unjust enrichment/quasi-contract can stand alone as a cause of action)
- Chiaradio v. Falck, 794 A.2d 494 (R.I. 2002) (expert-witness fees are not normally recoverable as taxable costs under § 9-22-5)
- Kottis v. Cerilli, 612 A.2d 661 (R.I. 1992) (prohibition on including expert fees in costs awards; guidance on costs taxation)