Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. v. St. Mary's Bank, 89-185
| Decision Date | 27 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-185,89-185 |
| Citation | 133 N.H. 582,580 A.2d 730 |
| Parties | PELLA WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC. v. ST. MARY'S BANK. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Rinden Professional Ass'n, Concord (Paul A. Rinden, on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.
Raymond A. Cloutier Law Offices, Manchester (Richard E. Fradette, on the brief, and Robert J. Meagher, orally and on the brief), for defendant.
The plaintiff subcontractor, Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. (Pella), seeks to recover from the defendant construction mortgagee, St. Mary's Bank (St. Mary's), $31,178.15 as payment for windows ordered by the general contractor, The Christian Group, Inc. (Christian), basing its claim on Christian's written authorization to St. Mary's to pay Pella directly such sums as would otherwise be payable to Christian. The Superior Court (Dalianis, J.) found no dispute that the terms of the authorization shielded St. Mary's from liability to Pella and granted St. Mary's second motion for summary judgment, from which Pella appeals. We affirm.
In June of 1984, Jack and Cheryl Faraci contracted with Christian to construct a house in Hollis. To finance the project, the Faracis entered into a $288,000 construction loan agreement with St. Mary's, which covered virtually their entire anticipated construction costs, and which required that all loan disbursements were to be made jointly payable to the Faracis and Christian.
Christian subsequently placed a $23,223.36 order with Pella to purchase windows for the Faraci house. On October 24, at Pella's behest, Christian executed an agreement, drafted by Pella on Pella stationery, that authorized St. Mary's to pay the $23,223.36 directly to Pella out of the construction loan funds. The agreement purported to be an "assignment of funds to Pella Windows and Doors, Inc.," and explicitly released St. Mary's "for any liability that may be involved in connection with releasing these funds." St. Mary's also signed this agreement and the Faracis consented to it orally.
Due to an error in the original window order, Christian subsequently increased it to $31,178.15, and, consequently, Pella drafted, and St. Mary's and Christian executed, a new agreement on November 27, identical to the first in all respects except for the amount of funds to be released, which was changed to reflect the increased order. At some point, apparently after Christian had placed the new order but before it had executed the new agreement, St. Mary's sent Pella a check for $31,178.15. Pella, however, at the Faracis' request, returned the check to St. Mary's because it had not yet completed delivery of the windows ordered.
Pella completed delivery in June of 1985 and repeatedly demanded payment from St. Mary's without success. During this period, Christian began to experience financial difficulties, and eventually ceased performance of its construction contract....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Long
...John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 131 N.H. 485, 491, 558 A.2d 822, 825 (1989); see RSA 491:8-a, III." Pella Windows and Doors v. St. Mary's Bank, 133 N.H. 582, 584, 580 A.2d 730, 732 (1990). The plaintiff alleged no facts that could entitle him, as a matter of law, to judgment on the abuse o......
-
Penta Corp. v.
...III. Numerous affidavits were filed prior to Penta's Motions that further support Penta's arguments. See Pella Windows & Doors v. St. Mary's Bank, 133 N.H. 582, 584 (1990) ("[I]t is sufficient for the purpose of RSA 491:8-a, II that such a motion is adequately supported by an affidavit alre......
-
Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. v. Faraci, 89-198
...by brief and orally, for defendants. PER CURIAM. The facts underlying this action are discussed in Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. v. St. Mary's Bank, 133 N.H. 582, 580 A.2d 730, which we also decide today. The plaintiff, Pella Windows and Doors, Inc. (Pella) claims that although it had no ex......