Back to Industry Newsletters
 

ConstructionWebLinks.com

In the 1990s numerous prompt payment statutes were enacted and amended in California. Two recent appellate court decisions clarified several aspects of these laws, finding that:

In first case, a contractor on a public school project received the final progress payment, less retention, and then failed to pay a subcontractor the $31,520 progress payment that was admittedly due under the subcontract within the required 10 days. Morton Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. Stanley Douglas Patscheck, 87 Cal.App.4th 712 (2001) The reason for non-payment is not clearly stated in the opinion but apparently was due to problems caused by a subcontractor to the subcontractor. After the contractor was paid the retention, he offered the subcontractor $42,800 as full and final settlement of all claims on the project. This sum represented the amount that the contractor admitted was due under the contract but excluded extra work, interest and penalties. Apparently the contractor never made any further payments to the subcontractor. At trial, the subcontractor recovered $111,316.73, which included the contract balance, extra work, interest, penalties, attorney fees and costs.

On appeal, the court focused on the provisions in Business and Professions Code §7108.5, which provides (for both public and private projects) that upon receipt of a progress payment, the contractor must pay any subcontractor within 10 days the amount allowed the contractor for work performed by the subcontractor. The contractor may withhold up to 150 percent of any amount over which a "good faith" dispute exists. A violation of the statute entitles the subcontractor to recover a penalty of 2 percent a month on the outstanding balance payable. In the event that a legal action is brought, the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs.

The appellate court rejected the contractor's argument that allowing recovery of prejudgment interest (Civil Code §3287) and the 2 percent penalty (Business and Professions Code §7108.5) would result in a double recovery for the subcontractor. The court, in holding that the subcontractor could recover both, noted that Public Contract Code §7107, a prompt payment statute for retention payments to contractors and subcontractors on public projects, expressly states that the 2 percent penalty is "in lieu of any interest otherwise due," language not found in §7108.5.

In the second case, a contractor withheld the subcontractor's retention of $101,580.45 based on a dispute about the levelness tolerances of a concrete floor installed by the subcontractor in a cold storage facility. The trial court, in interpreting the different contract provisions regarding the tolerances for the concrete floor, held that

[T]here was no meeting of the minds between plaintiff and defendant as to what the contractual specification was for the suspended dock floor. Therefore, the plaintiff did not breach the contract by failing to perform to the defendant's interpretation… As such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff or defendant breached the contract.

The trial court found that both parties' interpretation of the contract was reasonable and further found that the floor met an industry standards tolerance. Ultimately, the trial court awarded the subcontractor the full amount of the withheld retention but refused to award a penalty and attorney fees under Civil Code §3260 (prompt payment of retention to contractors and subcontractors on private projects).

On appeal, the subcontractor argued that it was entitled to recover the penalty and attorney fees because §3260 essentially allows any subcontractor that sues and recovers retention money to also recover its attorney fees. In other words, §3260 provides for an award of attorney fees to the party entitled to retention without regard to whether or not a bona fide dispute existed.

The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, stating that "attorney's fees are to be awarded only in cases in which the retention payments are not made within the required time periods, i.e., where a bona fide dispute does not exist," and that "the 2 percent penalty and attorney's fees are directed at the more egregious situation in which a contractor withholds payment of retention proceeds beyond specified time periods and without cause." Denver D. Darling, Inc. v. Controlled Environments Construction, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 1221 (2001).

However, the Court of Appeal found that the subcontractor was entitled to recover the penalty and attorney fees because the contractor withheld more than "150 percent of the disputed amount" as provided in §3260. The evidence indicated that the contractor had written to the subcontractor in February 1998 and represented that it had estimated the cost of corrective work in June 1997 to be $32,394. The contractor withheld the entire $101,580 retention, more than 150 percent of the estimated cost of corrective work. At trial, the contractor contended the corrective work would cost $200,000 to $300,000.

The Court of Appeals held that the "disputed amount" in §3260 refers to the amount in dispute at the time the retention proceeds are withheld, which in the case of payments to the subcontractors is 10 days after the contractor receives the retention payments from the owner. It stated: "Any sums withheld in excess of 150 percent of the 'estimated value of the disputed amount' are thus not subject to a bona fide dispute, and are 'improperly withheld' beyond the applicable time period." In such a case, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorney fees. The Darling court remanded to the trial court the issue of entitlement to attorney fees and, presumably, the 2 percent a month penalty.

While these cases provide important clarifications of the prompt payment laws, they also underscore the critical importance of proper and thorough documentation by the contractor when it makes a decision not to pass through a progress or retention payment to the subcontractor. The penalties if the contractor is unable to establish its "good faith" or a "bona fide" dispute are a whopping 34 percent a year (2 percent a month plus statutory interest of 10 percent a year) plus payment of the attorney fees and costs for both sides. On the positive side for general contractors, the reasoning of the Morton and Darling decisions applies with equal force to payments by owners to contractors, making the 34 percent and attorney fees recoverable by the contractor from the owner when an owner violates the prompt payment statutes.

If you would like to receive legal reports and updates more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form. If you would like to subscribe to our RSS feeds or learn more about RSS, click here.

	Send This Report to a Colleague
	Tools to Share, Organize, Comment on Information