Warren Construction Group, LLC v. Leslie Reis
130 A.3d 969
Me.2016Background
- Warren Construction performed renovation work for Leslie and Michael Reis under an oral contract beginning Sept. 2012; work ceased Feb. 2013 after the Reises failed to pay.
- Warren perfected a mechanic’s lien (May 2013) and sued in Superior Court asserting breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, violation of the Prompt Payment Act, and enforcement of the mechanic’s lien.
- Michael Reis admitted in the answer that a binding contract existed.
- Warren moved for summary judgment on breach of contract, the Prompt Payment Act, and enforcement of its mechanic’s lien; Michael Reis filed unsigned, noncompliant opposition filings focused on alleged incomplete work and payment timing.
- After summary judgment for Warren, the Reises moved to alter/amend (Rule 59), for the first time briefly referencing the Home Construction Contracts Act (HCCA) and asserting the oral contract violated it; the trial court denied relief and remaining equitable counts were later dismissed.
- On appeal the Reises argued the oral contract was unenforceable under the HCCA; the Supreme Judicial Court held the HCCA argument was not preserved and affirmed judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Warren) | Defendant's Argument (Reis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract is unenforceable under the HCCA, defeating Warren’s claims | Contract is enforceable; summary judgment proper | Oral contract violates HCCA (must be written if >$3,000) so no liability | Not considered on appeal — Reis failed to preserve the HCCA defense |
| Whether summary judgment on breach of contract, Prompt Payment Act, and mechanic’s lien was proper | Record and Reis’s admission support summary judgment | Disputed factual issues about completion and payment timing | Summary judgment affirmed as preserved issues did not include HCCA invalidity |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural noncompliance or late-raised issues | n/a | Pro se status should allow consideration of HCCA defense | Pro se litigants held to same standards; late/sparse reference to HCCA insufficient |
| Whether a Rule 59 motion raised the HCCA issue for preservation | n/a | Rule 59 motion cited HCCA, so issue preserved for appeal | Glancing, late reference in Rule 59 motion insufficient to preserve issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Budge v. Town of Millinocket, 55 A.3d 484 (Me. 2012) (summary-judgment standard and viewing facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Richards v. Bruce, 691 A.2d 1223 (Me. 1997) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented litigants)
- Teel v. Colson, 396 A.2d 529 (Me. 1979) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal)
- Verizon New England, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 866 A.2d 844 (Me. 2005) (issue is preserved if record alerted the court and opposing party to its existence)
- Dillon v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 630 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2011) (arguments first raised in a motion for reconsideration are not preserved for appeal)