Buckeye Electric Company, Inc., Issue No. 1

December  2000

The Contractors Critic
Buckeye Electric Company, Inc
Reporting on Safety, Productivity, and Honesty in the Construction Industry.

Litigation, Liens & Litigation

Buckeye Liens Customers

Liens are an unnecessary evil in the construction industry. Many construction customers know how maddening it is to try and obtain bank financing where there is some claim or lien, no matter how frivolous, against your property. That is why it is important for construction customers to be concerned about whether a contractor is likely to file liens against its customers, rather than negotiate a solution.

A lien against your property by a contractor is as effective a claim against your equity as a bank’s mortgage, according to the Engineering News Report (June 26, 2000, pg 123). Liens are especially aggravating for a construction customer, because their property is burdened over a dispute between two contractors, and does not involve any wrongdoing by the owner.

The following is a list of some of the liens that Buckeye has filed against the property of its own construction customers, in some cases because of disputes with other contractors, not with the owner. Several of these liens are notable, because the sums are so petty. Buckeye’s willingness to encumber a customer’s property over a dispute as minor as $80 should set off alarm bells among Buckeye’s potential customers.

Litigation, Litigation and Litigation

Although Buckeye Electric Company, Inc. is a small contractor, Montgomery County Court records (Dayton, Ohio) show that Buckeye Electric has been implicated in about 40 different civil suits, both as plaintiff and defendant. Based on the experience of The Contractors Critic, this is a high number of suits for a small contractor. Buckeye has been sued by their own customers, as well as by Montgomery County and the State of Ohio. Buckeye Electric has sued its own customers and fellow contractors. The following are some details from Buckeye Electric’s lengthy litigation history.

In 1997, Buckeye had an electrical installation job with Ohio State. Buckeye contracted with NACOM for supplying and installation of a wiring system. According to Buckeye, NACOM asked for another $55,000 - $135,000 to complete the work. Rather than negotiationg a nutually agreeable solution, Buckeye Electric sued NACOM.

This court case began as a dispute between Buckeye and another contractors, CMC, however, Buckeye sued both CMC and Petland, the customer, in 1997 and charged breach of contract in this suit over $21,672. In The Critic’s opinion, everyone would be better served if these types of relatively minor contract disputes were arbitrated or settled without resorting to litigation against the construction customer. Buckeye also filed a lien in this dispute.