{ "id": 4278169, "name": "WATERS EDGE BUILDERS, LLC, Plaintiff v. OSCAR LONGA and JENIFER LONGA, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Waters Edge Builders, LLC v. Longa", "decision_date": "2011-08-02", "docket_number": "No. COA10-1389", "first_page": "350", "last_page": "358", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "214 N.C. App. 350" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "660 S.E.2d 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640972 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "910", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "910" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/660/0907-01" ] }, { "cite": "647 S.E.2d 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638974 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "674", "parenthetical": "citation and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/647/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "658 S.E.2d 924", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640688 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "926", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/658/0924-01" ] }, { "cite": "624 S.E.2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634820 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/624/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.C. App. 808", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4158388 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "811", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/190/0808-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4749057 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.C. App. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8208915 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155", "parenthetical": "citation and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/185/0153-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249453 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "563 S.E.2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. App. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9080948 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/150/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "497 S.E.2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415" }, { "page": "414-15", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659811 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" }, { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "312 S.E.2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" }, { "page": "218", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "218" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 N.C. App. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525808 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645" }, { "page": "647" }, { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/66/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150084 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3794819 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "268", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0263-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 777, "char_count": 17153, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14358250230032715 }, "sha256": "9ff5042fb55373fb4f92350269aca4d22ab0a37e7a3c847fa8524a0eff13635a", "simhash": "1:0febbf244a7e9c34", "word_count": 2807 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:33:33.584356+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ELMORE and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "WATERS EDGE BUILDERS, LLC, Plaintiff v. OSCAR LONGA and JENIFER LONGA, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nWhere a claim of lien cannot be premised upon a contract implied in law wherein the theory of recovery is quantum meruit, the trial court erred in granting plaintiff\u2019s claim of lien on defendant\u2019s property and awarding plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees on the basis of plaintiff\u2019s status as the prevailing party. Where the evidence is not conclusive that the final arrangement between the parties required plaintiff to perform some act indicating a promise to complete defendant\u2019s staircase for a cost of $9,000.00, the trial court was not compelled to find that the contractual relationship between the parties was unilateral.\nPlaintiff Waters Edge Builders, LLC, was hired by defendant Oscar Longa to construct a staircase in a home he and his wife (collectively \u201cdefendants\u201d) were renovating in Watauga County. This matter arises from a disagreement regarding the final amount plaintiff was owed for the work. On 8 September 2008, plaintiff filed a claim of lien on defendants\u2019 real property which stated that labor or materials were last furnished upon the property on 13 August 2008. On 5 February 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking recovery on the basis of breach of contract, mechanics and materialman\u2019s lien, and quantum meruit. On 1 April 2009, defendant answered plaintiff\u2019s complaint and counterclaimed on the basis of breach of contract, fraud, deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce, and action to quiet title. On 25 June 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claim of lien and for summary judgment as to the contract claim against Jenifer Longa. On 8 July 2010, after considering the affidavits of the parties and the arguments of counsel presented in open court on 6 July 2010, the trial court denied defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the claim of lien and motion for summary judgment. On 11 August 2010, the trial court entered its order awarding plaintiff $5,000.00 under the theory of quantum meruit and granting plaintiff a materialman\u2019s lien against defendants\u2019 property. Pursuant to the lien, the court ordered that defendants\u2019 property be sold in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-13(b) to satisfy the lien. Further, the trial court concluded that there was an unreasonable refusal by defendants to fully resolve the matter, constituting bad faith. On this basis and in its discretion, the trial court awarded plaintiff $8,625.00 in attorney\u2019s fees. Defendants appeal.\nOn appeal, defendants raise four issues: did the trial court err (I) in enforcing plaintiff\u2019s claim of lien; (II) in granting plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees; (III) in awarding recovery on the theory of quantum meruit; and (IV) in concluding that no unilateral contract existed between the parties.\n/\nDefendants first argue that the trial court erred in enforcing plaintiff\u2019s claim of lien when the trial court also found that there existed no express contract between the parties and allowed plaintiff\u2019s recovery on the theory of quantum meruit. Defendants contend that absent an express contract or one implied-in-fact, plaintiff is precluded from placing a lien on real property. We agree.\n\u201cThe materialman\u2019s lien statute is remedial in that it seeks to protect the interests of those who supply labor and materials that improve the value of the owner\u2019s property.\u201d O & M Indus. v. Smith Eng\u2019g Co., 360 N.C. 263, 268, 624 S.E.2d 345, 348 (2006) (citations omitted). \u201cA remedial statute must be construed broadly in the light of the evils sought to be eliminated, the remedies intended to be applied, and the objective to be attained.\u201d Carolina Bldg. Servs.\u2019 Windows & Doors, Inc. v. Boardwalk, LLC, 362 N.C. 262, 264, 658 S.E.2d 924, 926 (2008) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Under North Carolina General Statutes, section 44A-8,\n[a]ny person who performs or furnishes labor or professional design ... or furnishes materials . . . pursuant to a contract, either express or implied, with the owner of real property for the making of an improvement thereon shall, upon complying with the provisions of this Article, have a right to file a claim of lien on real property on the real property to secure payment of all debts owing for labor done or professional design or surveying services or material furnished or equipment rented pursuant to the contract.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-8 (2009) (emphasis added). \u201cThere are at least three variations of contract theory . . . : express contract, contract implied in fact, and contract implied in law. The first two theories are based on \u2018real\u2019 contracts, genuine agreements between the parties.\u201d Ellis Jones, Inc. v. Western Waterproofing Co., 66 N.C. App. 641, 645, 312 S.E.2d 215, 217 (1984). A contract implied-in-law is not based upon an actual agreement. Paul L. Whitfield, P.A. v. Gilchrist, 348 N.C. 39, 42, 497 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1998). \u201c[A]nd quantum meruit is not an appropriate remedy when there is an actual agreement between the parties.\u201d Id. \u201cIn order to prevent unjust enrichment, a plaintiff may recover in quantum meruit on an implied contract theory for the reasonable value of services rendered to and accepted by a defend- ant.\u201d Horack v. S. Real Estate Co., 150 N.C. App. 305, 311, 563 S.E.2d 47, 52 (2002) (citation omitted).\nHere, the trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s claim for breach of contract. Specifically, the trial court found that \u201cPlaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to prove that there was a meeting of the minds as to the amount and manner in which Plaintiff was to be paid for work performed for Defendants and therefore Plaintiff failed to prove that there was an express contract between the parties.\u201d Instead, the trial court found that there were sufficient grounds to award plaintiff a recovery for the value of materials and labor under the theory of quantum meruit.\n[While] quantum meruit is a measure of recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered in order to prevent unjust enrichment. It operates as an equitable remedy based upon a quasi contract or a contract implied in law. A quasi contract or a contract implied in law is not a contract.\nGilchrist, 348 N.C. at 42, 497 S.E.2d at 414-15 (internal citations and quotations omitted). A contract implied-in-law is nothing more than a term of art used to express an equitable remedy used by the court to prevent unjust enrichment. To establish a valid claim of lien under section 44A-8, an enforceable contract must exist between the parties. As quantum meruit is not a theory based upon an actual agreement, it may not establish the contractual relationship necessary to form the basis for filing a claim of lien pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-8. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s order granting plaintiff a lien on defendants\u2019 real property is reversed.\nII\nNext, defendants argues that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-35. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the award.\n\u201c[T]he general rule in North Carolina is that a party may not recover its attorney\u2019s fees unless authorized by statute.\u201d Martin Achitectural Prods. Inc. v. Meridian Constr. Co., 155 N.C. App. 176, 181, 574 S.E.2d 189, 192 (2002) (citations omitted). \u201cThe case law in North Carolina is clear that to overturn the trial judge\u2019s determination on the issue of attorneys\u2019 fees, the defendant must show an abuse of discretion.\u201d Bruning & Federle Mfg. Co. v. Mills, 185 N.C. App. 153, 155, 647 S.E.2d 672, 674 (2007) (citation and brackets omitted).\n\u201cIn any suit brought or defended under the provisions of Article 2 or Article 3 of [Chapter 44A, Statutory Liens and Charges], the presiding judge may allow a reasonable attorneys\u2019 fee to the attorney representing the prevailing party.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-35 (2009).\nIn its order, the trial court awarded plaintiff attorney fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-35, as the prevailing party. However, given our holding in issue-1, plaintiff could not prevail within the meaning of \u00a7 44A-35. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s award of attorney fees to plaintiff, as the prevailing party, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-35, is vacated.\nIII\nNext, defendants argue that the trial court erred in awarding plaintiff a recovery in the amount of $5,000.00 on the theory of quantum meruit as the trial court lacked competent evidence to arrive as such a figure. We disagree.\n\u201cIn a non-jury trial, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence.\u201d Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Business Sys., Inc., 319 N.C. 534, 541, 356 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1987) (citation omitted). Therefore, our task is limited to determining whether there was competent evidence from which the trial court could find that the amount plaintiff was entitled to recover under the theory of quantum meruit is $5,000.00. See id.\n\u201cUnder a contract implied in law, the measure of recovery is quantum meruit, the reasonable value of materials and services rendered by the plaintiff that are accepted and appropriated by defend- ant.\u201d Ellis Jones, 66 N.C. App. at 647, 312 S.E.2d at 218 (citations omitted).\nRandy Waters, member-manager for plaintiff, testified that he was the contractor constructing defendant\u2019s stairwell. He was first referred to defendants on 30 April 2008. Waters testified that defendant Oscar Longa selected solid oak and wrought iron spindles as the materials out of which to construct the staircase. In late June 2008, Oscar Longa requested that Waters provide him with an estimate. Waters estimated that the construction would cost $8,936.00.\nOn 28 July 2008, near the completion of the project, Waters sent to Oscar Longa an invoice for $13,830.14. Oscar had already paid Waters $4,788.00 and, on 8 August 2008, paid an additional $3,000.00. On 8 August, Waters met defendants at the residence. Waters testified that Oscar requested some changes be made the on the staircase landings for which Waters did additional work amounting to $1,304.85 between 8 and 14 August. Given the total invoice and subtracting the amounts previously paid ($4,788.00 and $3,000.00), defendants\u2019 amount outstanding was $7,346.99. In a telephone conversation occurring after 15 August 2008, Waters testified that Oscar Longa informed him that they had an agreed upon price of $9,000.00 and that defendants would not pay the outstanding balance. Waters subsequently received a check from Oscar Longa for $1,500.00.\nAt trial, on cross-examination, Waters acknowledged that some portions of the handrail system and corresponding treads would need to be replaced; however, in lieu of replacing the entire handrail system, some of the treads would, as a result, be disproportionately spaced.\nQ. If it was determined, or if you had to do this, to replace the entire handrail system, uninstall it, fix the treads that are cut and reinstall the handrail system so you don\u2019t cut treads, how much would that cost in materials and man time?\nA. I have no idea.\nQ. Do you have an estimate?\nA. No.\nQ. $2,000?\nA. (no audible response)\nQ. More?\nA. (no audible response)\nMR. WILSON: Your Honor, he said he doesn\u2019t have an estimate.\nTHE COURT: Well, we\u2019re looking for a ballpark. Give us a ball park, if you can.\nA. Well, you could certainly reuse all the spindles. You could reuse all the newel posts. You could reuse all the handrails. So you\u2019re really talking about treads. I think an oak tread\u2019s about $25.\nQ. Do you know how many were cut?\nA. A gallon of stain\u2019s, you know, $30. What, three? Three of them? Two? Three?\nQ. Okay. What kind of man hours are we talking about?\nA. I mean, I could do it by myself in a day.\nIn its order, the trial court made the following findings:\n8. Plaintiff submitted evidence that the present balance due from Defendants for work performed on the Defendants\u2019 residence was $7,346.99.\n9. Defendants submitted evidence that questioned whether some of the workmanship performed by the Plaintiff was in accordance with acceptable construction standards and practices.\n10. The Court finds after considering all of the evidence including the testimony of the witnesses, the photographs and invoices introduced by Plaintiff that the balance of the value of material and labor furnished by the Plaintiff to the Defendants is $5,000.00.\nGiven the evidence and the inexact nature of ascertaining a definite cost for the type of service provided, the value as assessed by the trial court, for the materials and services rendered by plaintiff and accepted by defendants, was reasonable and supported by competent evidence. See Ellis Jones, 66 N.C. App. at 647, 312 S.E.2d at 218. Accordingly defendants\u2019 argument is overruled.\nIV\nLast, defendants argue that the trial court erred by failing to find that a unilateral contract existed between plaintiff and defendants. We disagree.\n\u201cA unilateral contract is formed when one party makes a promise and expressly or impliedly invites the other party to perform some act as a condition for making the promise binding on the promisor.\u201d CIM Ins. Corp. v. Cascade Auto Glass, Inc., 190 N.C. App. 808, 811, 660 S.E.2d 907, 910 (2008) (citation omitted).\nOn 28 June 2008, defendant Oscar Longa sent plaintiff an email stating the following: \u201cIn regards to the cost of the finished product, labor, materials, installed and finished.... I need a total not to exceed price, would a total price of $9,000.00 work for you? If it does, let\u2019s get started.\u201d However, Waters testified that following defendant\u2019s email, he had a telephone conversation with defendant Oscar Longa. Following is an excerpt of his testimony:\nQ. And what was discussed in that conversation?\nA. Well, I think the previous e-mail where we were still discussing a design direction, and we discussed the $9,000 as a capped bid. And I \u2014 again, I don\u2019t work on capped bids. Everything I dp is time and material. And the project and the design installation was going to strictly have to be engineered on the fly, and there\u2019s no way that I could ever have known what I was going to get into during the installation, not to mention we still didn\u2019t have a final selection of material picked out.\nQ. And in the e-mail that Mr. Longa sent to.you requesting a cap of $9,000, was he still discussing the selection of materials?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Had any of that been finalized yet?\nA. No.\nQ. After that discussion with Mr. Longa, did you then begin work?\nA. Well, after he gave me assurances that he wanted me to install the system, he would pay me, he wanted to get his CO and wanted me to order the material, which I did.\nAs the evidence is not conclusive that the final arrangement between the parties invited plaintiff to perform some act as a condition for making the promise to complete the construction of defendants\u2019 staircase for $9,000.00, the trial court was not compelled to find that the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendants was a unilateral one. See id. at 811, 660 S.E.2d at 910. Accordingly, defendants\u2019 argument is overruled.\nWe reverse the trial court\u2019s order granting plaintiff a claim of lien, and vacate the award of attorneys fees based thereon. We affirm the trial court\u2019s $5,000.00 award to plaintiff based on quantum meruit and its ruling of no unilateral contract.\nAffirmed in part; reversed in part; and vacated in part.\nJudges ELMORE and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Di Santi Watson Capua & Wilson, by Frank C. Wilson, III, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Miller & Johnson, PLLC, by Nathan A. Miller, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WATERS EDGE BUILDERS, LLC, Plaintiff v. OSCAR LONGA and JENIFER LONGA, Defendants\nNo. COA10-1389\n(Filed 2 August 2011)\n1. Quantum Meruit \u2014 lien on real property \u2014 precluded absent express contract\nThe trial court erred by enforcing plaintiff\u2019s claim of lien when the trial court allowed plaintiff\u2019s recovery on the theory of quantum meruit. Absent an express contract or one implied-in-fact, plaintiff was precluded from placing a lien on real property.\n2. Attorney Fees \u2014 prevailing party \u2014 reversal of holding\nThe trial court erred by granting plaintiff attorney fees under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-35. Plaintiff was not the prevailing party within the meaning of the statute given the Court of Appeals\u2019 reversal of the trial court\u2019s order granting plaintiff a lien on defendant\u2019s real property.\n3. Quantum Meruit \u2014 materials and services \u2014 inexact nature of costs \u2014 reasonableness\nThe trial court did not err by awarding plaintiff a recovery in the amount of $5,000.00 on the theory of quantum meruit. Given the evidence and the inexact nature of ascertaining a definite cost for the type of service provided, the value assessed by the trial court for materials and services was reasonable and supported by competent evidence.\n4. Contracts \u2014 unilateral contract \u2014 no condition for making promise\nThe trial court did not err by failing to find that a unilateral contract existed between the parties. The evidence was not conclusive that a final agreement between the parties invited plaintiff to perform some act for making the promise to complete the construction of defendant\u2019s staircase for $9,000.\nAppeal by defendants from order entered 11 August 2010 by Judge William A. Leavell, III, in Watauga County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 March 2011.\nDi Santi Watson Capua & Wilson, by Frank C. Wilson, III, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMiller & Johnson, PLLC, by Nathan A. Miller, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0350-01", "first_page_order": 360, "last_page_order": 368 }