Sweet v. Breivogel
201 A.3d 1215
| Me. | 2019Background
- Homeowner Carl and Elizabeth Breivogel hired timber-frame builder John Sweet II in 2013 to construct a home; parties never executed a written contract despite statutory requirement.
- The parties disagreed about scope and price: Sweet believed he was building an enclosed weathertight shell; the Breivogels expected a finished, move-in home for ~$275,000.
- Sweet performed work from summer 2013 to May 2014, billed $602,250.98; Breivogels paid $601,195.75.
- Sweet filed a mechanic’s lien (~$52,000) and sued for unpaid labor; the Breivogels counterclaimed for negligence, breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and a UTPA violation based on HCCA noncompliance.
- Trial court: awarded Sweet recovery on quantum meruit (found implied contract by conduct), deducted $640.77 overcharge, found Sweet violated the HCCA (no written contract) which was prima facie a UTPA violation, awarded Breivogels $3,832.43 costs and $30,000 attorney fees; Breivogels appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Breivogels' Argument | Sweet's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Breivogels proved fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of contract | Breivogels: Sweet misled them about scope/cost; they relied and suffered loss | Sweet: Parties never formed an express contract; no actionable misrepresentations proven | Court: Affirmed trial finding that evidence did not compel relief on these counterclaims; no express contract or fraud shown |
| Whether quantum meruit recovery was appropriate and amount reasonable | Breivogels: No common understanding of material terms; quantum meruit misplaced; damages should be larger | Sweet: Parties’ conduct and communications created expectation of payment; invoices support value claimed | Court: Quantum meruit appropriate; court’s valuation supported—Breivogels actually overpaid $640.77; Sweet entitled to amount already paid |
| Whether HCCA violation entitles Breivogels to greater UTPA damages | Breivogels: HCCA violation (no written contract) is UTPA basis for larger recovery | Sweet: Although HCCA violation occurred, Breivogels received the benefit of the work and no substantial loss shown | Court: HCCA violation is prima facie UTPA violation but Breivogels failed to show loss of money/property from the violation; no additional UTPA damages beyond costs/fees awarded |
| Whether attorney fees award was insufficient | Breivogels: Requested >3× the awarded fees; all claims were intertwined so full fees recoverable | Sweet: Fees must be apportioned to UTPA-eligible work; not all claims merit fee recovery | Court: Fee award ($30,000) was reasonable; trial court properly apportioned fees based on limited success and UTPA-related work |
Key Cases Cited
- Gravison v. Fisher, 134 A.3d 857 (Me. 2016) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Paffhausen v. Balano, 708 A.2d 269 (Me. 1998) (quantum meruit elements and recovery when no written contract)
- Parker v. Ayre, 612 A.2d 1283 (Me. 1992) (HCCA violation is prima facie evidence of UTPA violation; plaintiff must show loss)
- Tungate v. MacLean-Stevens Studios, Inc., 714 A.2d 792 (Me. 1998) (UTPA/HCCA interplay and requirement to show loss)
- William Mushero, Inc. v. Hull, 667 A.2d 853 (Me. 1995) (attorney fees under UTPA limited to time spent pursuing UTPA claim)
- Advanced Constr. Corp. v. Pilecki, 901 A.2d 189 (Me. 2006) (apportionment of fees when claims are intertwined)
- Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 165 A.3d 357 (Me. 2017) (factors for determining reasonable attorney fees)
- Roussel v. Ashby, 114 A.3d 670 (Me. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion review of attorney-fee awards)