R.J.P. Corp. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 07 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | PM 00-0408 |
| Parties | R.J.P. CORPORATION v. KEVIN MILLER AND JANET MILLER |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
This matter is before this Court following a nonjury trial. The Plaintiff, R.J.P. Corporation (R.J.P.), seeks payment for construction work it performed on property located at 35 Brigham Farm Road, East Providence, R.I. owned by Defendants Kevin and Janet Miller (Millers). The Millers dispute the amount and ask this Court to release the property from a mechanic's lien that is currently recorded in favor of R.J.P.
During the summer of 1998, the Millers hired R.J.P. to serve as the general contractor for the construction of their new house. (See Plaintiff's Exhibits #1 and #2.) R.J.P provided a comprehensive, ten-page written agreement that set forth the project specifications and the payment terms for the $299,588 cost. Among other things, the first line of the agreement stated that R.J.P. "shall provide all necessary labor and materials and perform all work of every nature whatsoever to be done in the erection of said project for: Kevin and Janet Miller." The agreement was signed by the Millers and by Robert J. Prohaska, president of R.J.P.
R.J.P supervised the construction process from 1998 through the summer of 1999. Sometimes R.J.P. performed the construction work itself, and sometimes it hired subcontractors. However no matter who did the work, the Millers were never satisfied with the results. The Millers frequently relayed their complaints to R.J.P. (See generally Defendants' Exhibits, A through VV.) In July 1999, the Millers started to document their grievances through the use of a video camera. The product of this video project was a two-cassette compilation of complaints nearly two hours in length. (See Defendants' Exhibits FF & GG.)
In late August or early September of 1999, after more than a year of conflict, the Millers fired R.J.P. R.J.P. subsequently attempted to collect $55,591.44 from the Millers, which amount R.J.P. claimed as the outstanding balance for the work it had performed. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit #5.) The Millers refused to pay.
Subsequently R.J.P. proceeded to secure a mechanic's lien against the property for this outstanding balance. On September 27, 1999 R.J.P. filed its "Notice of Intention" with the Clerk of the City of East Providence. (Plaintiff's Exhibit #6.) Exactly 120 days later, on January 25, 2000, R.J.P. filed its "Notice of Lis Pendens" with the City. (Plaintiff's Exhibit #7.) That same day, R.J.P. filed its Petition to Enforce Mechanic's Lien in the Superior Court. In its Petition, R.J.P. also sought recovery for reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Notice of the Superior Court action was published on February 22, 2000 and filed with the Court Clerk the following day.
The Millers objected to the enforcement of the lien against the property. They claimed that the work performed by R.J.P. was "defective and done in an unworkman like [sic] fashion." (See Defendants' Objection.) Further, the Millers asserted that they spent more money to remedy R.J.P.'s defective work than R.J.P. claimed in its lien petition. The Millers subsequently filed a petition to deposit a bond in the amount of $55,181.44 with the Registry of Court in order to discharge the lien pending the outcome of the proceedings. The Court, Williams, J., granted the petition.
This Court held a nonjury trial over several days in November 2001. At trial, the two key disputed issues were the quality of R.J.P.'s workmanship and the employment status of Simon Mourato (Mourato), stone mason. Prohaska testified for R.J.P., denying the bulk of the Millers' complaints of deficient work. Specifically, Prohaska denied that R.J.P.'s faulty carpentry and use of the wrong nails were reasons that an outside deck required rebuilding; denied that the house needed re-bricking at a cost exceeding the cost of the entire house; denied that the staircase failed to meet code and that the loose railing thereupon was caused by R.J.P.'s faulty workmanship as opposed to "someone doing it damage"; and denied responsibility for any water entering the basement as opposed to "whomever" installed an outside drain, which sits next to the basement, without a vent.
However, Prohaska conceded that some of the work was indeed deficient. Particularly, Prohaska claimed responsibility for an unlevel garage floor and a floor in one of the rooms. He also acknowledged that he failed to attach shutters to the house, which was his responsibility, and that he had received $500 more in payments from the Millers than he had previously reported. Prohaska concluded that the total value of these items was $4,320.
The most expensive of the Millers' complaints involved the masonry work performed by Mourato. Prohaska testified that although Mourato was originally hired as a subcontractor of R.J.P., he attempted to fire Mourato in April of 1999. (See Post Trial Memorandum of Plaintiff, page 1.) Prohaska further testified that he did not wish to give Mourato the payment due on April 6, but was instructed to do so by the homeowner.[1] After that point, Prohaska testified that Mourato was paid directly by, and reported solely to, the Millers. Therefore, Prohaska claimed that any deficiencies in the masonry were not R.J.P.'s responsibility as the general contractor but instead belonged to Mourato's true employers, the Millers. R.J.P.'s mason, P. Douglas Miro, testified that Mourato's brickwork, as installed, would require only $10,000 worth of repairs.
The Millers' testimony and that of their experts contradicted most, if not all, of Prohaska's testimony. Particularly, the Millers presented testimony and other evidence supporting payments that they made on twelve invoices, totaling $17,280.54,[2] they claim they had already incurred installing, repairing, or replacing R.J.P.'s substandard or omitted work. (See Defendants' Exhibits II through MM and PP through TT.) Moreover, the Millers claimed that they had paid R.J.P. $637 more than R.J.P. had stated and not the $500 figure as described by Prohaska.
To support their argument regarding the defective staircase, the Millers presented the expert testimony of Michael Rand (Rand) and L. Robert Smith (Smith). Rand is an expert in general construction with special expertise in staircase construction. He testified that the staircase constructed by R.J.P. violated several sections of the state building code, namely in regard to "riser height" and "tread depth." Rand further estimated that the cost of repairing the stairs would be $39,000. His opinions regarding the defects in the staircase were supported by a report submitted by Smith, a structural engineer. (See Defendants' Exhibit CC.) The Millers testified that numerous people had fallen on the stairs. Also, the Millers' son, Jonathan, testified that he had recently slipped, cracking the banister post as he attempted to break his fall. Jonathan further testified that it was his third such fall on the stairs.
Rand and Smith also testified that much of the brickwork on the house would require replacement. As they both testified, the bricks were improperly placed directly against the wood roof without the necessary structural support. According to their testimony, this placement caused substantial cracking in the brick facade of the house, already visible after less than two years' time. Without replacement, Rand and Smith testified that this mistake could cause a complete failure of the bricks themselves. The two shared the opinion that the bricks needed to be removed so that the proper support could be added. Rand estimated the cost of repair at $142,000, while Smith estimated a cost of $100,000. Both admitted that an exact estimate would be difficult before the approval of final plans.
To support their argument regarding the defective deck, the Millers presented the testimony of Steven Shaw (Shaw), the carpenter who removed the deck built by R.J.P. and who constructed the replacement deck. Shaw testified that R.J.P. improperly used non-galvanized interior nails, which subsequently rusted and caused damage to the wood. During his testimony, Shaw provided samples of these rusted nails taken from the deck. (See Defendants' Exhibit B.) Moreover, Shaw testified that when he removed the deck, he discovered that the deck was not supported with a steel angle iron, which caused the brick above the deck to crack. Finally, Shaw testified that the lag bolts that attached the deck to the house did not secure the deck to the frame of the house. Shaw concluded that all of these factors combined caused instability in the deck, which necessitated its replacement.
In lieu of closing arguments, each side submitted a memorandum summarizing its claims. In their brief, the Millers dispute R.J.P.'s argument, supported by Prohaska's testimony that Mourato worked directly for the Millers. The Millers point to the clear language of the signed contract, which reads: (See Plaintiff's Exhibit #2 at page 9.) The Millers claim that Mourato contracted with R.J.P. only, and that R.J.P. failed to demonstrate any agreement between the Millers and Mourato that may have superseded R.J.P.'s duties under the contract. Moreover, the Millers argue that they hired R.J.P. because they lacked construction experience, and that if Mourato's performance was substandard, it was R.J.P.'s duty to remove Mourato or to give both Kevin and Janet Miller sufficient notice of such deficiencies. The Millers further claim that R.J.P.'s duty to "provide all necessary labor" and to "perform all work of every nature whatsoever" was...
To continue reading
Request your trial