{ "id": 8524993, "name": "JONES COOLING & HEATING, INC. v. DAVID A. BOOTH, Individually and Partner, and THOMAS D. CODY, Individually and Partner", "name_abbreviation": "Jones Cooling & Heating, Inc. v. Booth", "decision_date": "1990-08-07", "docket_number": "No. 8910DC1108", "first_page": "757", "last_page": "760", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "99 N.C. App. 757" } ], "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": "303 S.E.2d 852", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a subcontractor has the right to enforce a N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-18 lien against the property owner, based on a valid contract between an unlicensed general contractor and the property owner" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 N.C. App. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524515 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a subcontractor has the right to enforce a N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-18 lien against the property owner, based on a valid contract between an unlicensed general contractor and the property owner" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/63/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plaintiff could not use a restitution theory for recovering the balance of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust when plaintiff had the legal remedy of foreclosure" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606315 ], "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plaintiff could not use a restitution theory for recovering the balance of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust when plaintiff had the legal remedy of foreclosure" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S.E.2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plaintiff cannot invoke a constructive trust on property disposed of by will when a direct attack by will caveat \"gave her a full and complete remedy at law\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562504 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plaintiff cannot invoke a constructive trust on property disposed of by will when a direct attack by will caveat \"gave her a full and complete remedy at law\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 S.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "282", "parenthetical": "plaintiff could not use an equitable restitution claim when plaintiff had a legal remedy for breach of the covenant against encumbrances" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.C. App. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2645492 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25", "parenthetical": "plaintiff could not use an equitable restitution claim when plaintiff had a legal remedy for breach of the covenant against encumbrances" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/51/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 S.E.2d 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 735", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575936, 8575907, 8575876, 8575890, 8575922 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0735-05", "/nc/299/0735-03", "/nc/299/0735-01", "/nc/299/0735-02", "/nc/299/0735-04" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.C. App. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553638 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "470", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/44/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 S.E.2d 535", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1939, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "537", "parenthetical": "plaintiffs could not use any equitable theory to reduce a statutory interest rate, to set-off a bond against a street assessment, to delay foreclosure for nonpayment of taxes, or to assess the prevailing party with court costs" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607204 ], "year": 1939, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522", "parenthetical": "plaintiffs could not use any equitable theory to reduce a statutory interest rate, to set-off a bond against a street assessment, to delay foreclosure for nonpayment of taxes, or to assess the prevailing party with court costs" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659793 ], "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8357716 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/88/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 540", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2564495, 2561577, 2560493, 2565935 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0370-04", "/nc/323/0370-03", "/nc/323/0370-01", "/nc/323/0370-02" ] }, { "cite": "369 S.E.2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555-56" }, { "page": "556" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519016 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 S.E.2d 455", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N.C. App. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523347 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/98/0158-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 557, "char_count": 8209, "ocr_confidence": 0.787, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2869774265780284e-07, "percentile": 0.7858087479231415 }, "sha256": "9c8664fcb506376cb667996f80f5bb9cf01eae38dc0fa19454f1297433b239ca", "simhash": "1:0b098816250f2062", "word_count": 1307 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:52.620321+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Wells and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "JONES COOLING & HEATING, INC. v. DAVID A. BOOTH, Individually and Partner, and THOMAS D. CODY, Individually and Partner" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals the trial court\u2019s order granting summary judgment for defendants in plaintiff\u2019s civil suit to recover payment for installation of an air-conditioning system.\nRecord evidence shows that plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation engaged in the business of supplying and installing heating and air-conditioning equipment. At the time of these events, defendants were partners who leased shopping center space to be developed into a restaurant.\nOn 18 November 1985, defendants entered into a written contract with Growth Builders, a business name for a company comprising individuals George Rowe and Mike Van Pelt. Pursuant to the contract, Growth Builders was general contractor for building the restaurant. The contract included these provisions:\n1.1 The Contractor shall perform all the Work required by the Contract Documents for \u201cA restaurant fit[-]up [sic] . . . 6.1.3 Payments made by the Contractor to Subcontractors for Work performed pursuant to subcontracts under this Agreement. 11.2 Nothing contained in the Contract Documents shall create any contractual relationship between Owner . . . and any Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor.\nOn 30 December 1985, plaintiff submitted to Growth Builders a proposal to install heating and air-conditioning equipment in defendants\u2019 restaurant for $12,711.00. Growth Builders accepted the proposal offer and plaintiff installed the equipment. Growth Builders paid plaintiff $2,500.00, leaving an unpaid balance of $10,211.00. Plaintiff received no other payments from Growth Builders. Plaintiff subsequently discovered that Growth Builders was not a state-licensed contractor. Plaintiff then demanded payment from defendants, who refused, based on the contract provisions above.\nPlaintiff instituted suit, alleging its right to recovery based on defendants\u2019 unjust enrichment. Defendants submitted separate answers denying plaintiff\u2019s allegations. Plaintiff did not perfect a subcontractor\u2019s lien, as provided by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-18 (1989).\nEach defendant and plaintiff moved for summary judgment, offering their respective affidavits in support of their motions. After a hearing on the motions, the court entered summary judgment for each defendant and denied plaintiff\u2019s motion.\nThe sole issue is whether a subcontractor who has no contract with the owners is subrogated to the general contractor\u2019s claim against the owners for services rendered.\nSummary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... To entitle one to summary judgment, the movant must conclusively establish \u2018a complete defense or legal bar to the non-movant\u2019s claim.\u2019\nCheek v. Poole, 98 N.C. App. 158, 162, 390 S.E.2d 455, 458 (1990); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56 (1983).\nPlaintiff contends that summary disposition was inappropriate because it was entitled to use the doctrine of equitable subrogation as a basis for its claim of unjust enrichment. We disagree.\n\u201c \u2018A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.\u2019 \u201d Booe v. Shadrick, 322 N.C. 567, 570, 369 S.E.2d 554, 555-56, reh. denied, 323 N.C. 370, 373 S.E.2d 540 (1988). \u201cA claim of this type is neither in tort nor contract but is described as a claim in quasi contract or a contract implied in law.\u201d Id., at 567, 369 S.E.2d at 556.\n\u201cSubrogation is an equitable remedy in which one steps into the place of another and takes over the right to claim monetary damages to the extent that the other could have ...\" J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 1, 11, 362 S.E.2d 812, 818 (1987). \u201cWhile subrogation is not founded on contract, there must, in every case, whe[n] the doctrine is invoked, in addition to the inherent justice of the case, concur therewith some principle of equity jurisprudence as recognized and enforced by courts of equity.\u201d Journal Publishing Co. v. Barber, 165 N.C. 478, 488, 81 S.E. 694, 698 (1914).\nEquity supplements the law. .\u25a0. . Its character as the complement merely of legal jurisdiction rests in the fact that it seeks to reach and do complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of the case, are incompetent to do. It was never intended that it should, and it will never be permitted to, override or set at naught a positive statutory provision. . . .\nZebulon v. Dawson, 216 N.C. 520, 522, 5 S.E.2d 535, 537 (1939) (plaintiffs could not use any equitable theory to reduce a statutory interest rate, to set-off a bond against a street assessment, to delay foreclosure for nonpayment of taxes, or to assess the prevailing party with court costs).\n\u201cEquity will not lend its aid in any case whe[n] the party seeking it has a full and complete remedy at law.\u201d Centre Develop ment Co. v. County of Wilson, 44 N.C. App. 469, 470, 261 S.E.2d 275, 276, review denied, appeal dismissed, 299 N.C. 735, 267 S.E.2d 660 (1980) (citation omitted) (plaintiff could not use an injunction to prevent the county\u2019s use of eminent domain when plaintiff had a statutory remedy); Hawks v. Brindle, 51 N.C. App. 19, 25, 275 S.E.2d 277, 282 (1981) (plaintiff could not use an equitable restitution claim when plaintiff had a legal remedy for breach of the covenant against encumbrances); see also Johnson v. Stevenson, 269 N.C. 200, 152 S.E.2d 214 (1967) (plaintiff cannot invoke a constructive trust on property disposed of by will when a direct attack by will caveat \u201cgave her a full and complete remedy at law\u201d); Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Guilford County, 225 N.C. 293, 34 S.E.2d 430 (1945) (plaintiff could not use a restitution theory for recovering the balance of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust when plaintiff had the legal remedy of foreclosure).\nPlaintiff concedes that it had an adequate legal remedy in the form of a statutory lien against defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-18, but did not exercise it in a timely manner. See Zickgraf Enterprises, Inc. v. Younce, 63 N.C. App. 166, 303 S.E.2d 852 (1983) (a subcontractor has the right to enforce a N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-18 lien against the property owner, based on a valid contract between an unlicensed general contractor and the property owner). We do not consider plaintiffs failure to timely assert the remedy a circumstance that renders the statutory remedy \u2018inadequate,\u2019 because to do so would allow a party to circumvent the equitable principle set out above. Therefore, the existence of a legal remedy acts as a legal bar to plaintiff\u2019s subrogation claim, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendants.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Wells and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Farris & Farris, P.A., by Thomas J. Farris and Carl E. Gaddy, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.", "Bode, Call & Green, by S. Todd Hemphill, for defendant-appellee David A. Booth.", "Wyrick, Robbins, Yates & Ponton, by Emily R. Copeland, for defendant-appellee Thomas D. Cody." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JONES COOLING & HEATING, INC. v. DAVID A. BOOTH, Individually and Partner, and THOMAS D. CODY, Individually and Partner\nNo. 8910DC1108\n(Filed 7 August 1990)\nSubrogation \u00a7 1 (NCI3d)\u2014 subcontractor not paid by contractor\u2014 claim against owners \u2014summary judgment for defendants\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendants in an action in which plaintiff sought to recover payment for installation of a heating and air-conditioning system from the owners of the building even though plaintiff had no contract with the owners. Although plaintiff contended that it was entitled to use the doctrine of equitable subrogation as a basis for its claim for unjust enrichment, plaintiff concedes that it had an adequate legal remedy in the form of a statutory lien against defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-18, but did not exercise it in a timely manner. Plaintiff\u2019s failure to timely assert the remedy is not a circumstance that renders the statutory remedy inadequate.\nAm Jur 2d, Mechanics\u2019 Liens \u00a7 357; Subrogation \u00a7 4.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from judgment entered 29 June 1989 by Judge Fred M. Morelock in WAKE County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 April 1990.\nFarris & Farris, P.A., by Thomas J. Farris and Carl E. Gaddy, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nBode, Call & Green, by S. Todd Hemphill, for defendant-appellee David A. Booth.\nWyrick, Robbins, Yates & Ponton, by Emily R. Copeland, for defendant-appellee Thomas D. Cody." }, "file_name": "0757-01", "first_page_order": 787, "last_page_order": 790 }