CHRISTIAN BROTHERS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC. V MOORFIELD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., LOWE’S H.I.W., INC.
Christian Brothers filed a lien against and then sued this fellow
contractor in August 2001. Their court complaint claimed that Moorefield
Construction subcontracted with Christian Brothers to perform work at a
Lowe’s store in Riverside. After Moorefield had paid them, Christian
Brothers alleged they were still owed another $27,325. In this case, as in
the Simac Construction case, Christian Brothers also claimed they had been
"prevented or excused" from performing "all of its obligations."
Oddly, Christian Brothers dismissed the complaint only 14 days later.
(Case #362050)
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS SUES ANOTHER CUSTOMER AND A FELLOW CONTRACTOR
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC. V NIELSEN
DILLINGHAM BUILDERS, INC., ET AL
In 2000, Nielson Dillingham subcontracted over nine months worth of
construction work to Christian Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning at the
Eastgate Technology Park on Towne Center Drive in San Diego. According to
Christian Brothers’ court complaint, the $457,920 paid by Nielsen Dillingham
wasn’t enough. Christian Brothers filed a lien against the property, and
then sued both Nielsen Dillingham and the customer and property owner,
Irvine Corporation, asking for an additional $50,879
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC. V CANNON
CONSTRUCTORS, INC., ARDEN REALTY, INC., ET AL.
This Christian Brothers’ court suit charged that Cannon Constructors
contracted with Christian Brothers to provide construction services at the
Cinetech facility in Valencia, CA. Cannon Constructors and Christian
Brothers signed a contract stating that Christian Brothers would be paid a
total of $399,000 for their work.
As often happens, there were a series of change orders on the job
totaling $171,227, according to Christian Brothers’s court filings, which
would add up to about $570,000 total. However, after Christian Brothers was
ultimately paid $582,317, they alleged they were still owed another $28,818.
In this case, as in the others, Christian Brothers also claimed it might
have been "prevented or excused from performing" all of its obligations. So
Christian Brothers liened and sued the customer and the other contractor
again. (Case# PC026094)
The Critic is concerned about these several cases where Christian
Brothers is suing for "money owed." In the Critic’s experience, on some
occasions, these disputes over services rendered are at times indicative of
a hidden dispute over the quality of the construction services that were
provided. The sparse court records in these particular cases of litigation
do not provide evidence that Christian Brothers’ services in this matter
were faulty.
However, in the Critic’s opinion, if a construction company has to sue
many of its clients for non-payment, that is an indication that the quality
of their construction may deserve further investigation and research.
This particular example of litigation provides a troubling story of how
what appeared to be a "money-owed" court suit actually is a symptom of a
hidden story that might not reflect well on Christian Brothers. Christian
Brothers bids on a job. Then there are change orders. Christian Brothers is
paid 70 percent more than the original bid. Then Christian Brothers wants
another five percent on top of that. Rather than settle or arbitrate, they
file a lien and sue. Christian Brothers ends up withdrawing the complaint
shortly thereafter.
In the following case, there is an another indication that Christian
Brothers’ performance was not spotless in the instance of their "money owed"
suit. In this litigation, the other contractor who Christian Brothers sued,
filed a counter-claim that charged in part that Christian Brothers was
"guilty of negligence or other acts or omissions." (Case #00C01224)
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC. V D & D COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTION, PALMDALE MARKET PLACE, LLC, ET AL
In 1999, D & D Construction subcontracted construction work to Christian
Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning to be performed at the Barnes & Noble
and Linens-N-Things stores, at the Palmdale Market Place. According to
Christian Brothers’ court complaint, the $113,275 paid by D & D was not
adequate. Christian Brothers filed a lien against the property and then sued
D & D, the customer and property owner demanding another $12,186.
But in this case, D & D did not take this legal assault lying down. They
filed an answer to Christian Brothers’ complaint in September 2000. D & D’s
answer charged that Christian Brothers had "failed to take the proper steps
... to avoid or to mitigate the damages," that Christian Brothers was barred
from asserting any claims because of the doctrine of "unclean hands" and
that Christian Brothers’ "negligence, tortious, and wrongful conduct" was
responsible for the damages. D & D also alleged that Christian Brothers’
complaint was barred by reason of the "failure of consideration in the ...
performance of the ... contracts."
Christian Brothers eventually settled the case by agreeing not to collect
from D & D, until after D & D settled its own litigation with the property
owner. (Case #00C01224)
