In that suit Christian Brothers alleged Stenco Construction breached a contract and as a result the company sought to recover full payment under the Miller Act.

Christian Brothers claimed that on Dec. 7,1998 Stenco entered a contract to furnish services at the Camp Pendleton Commissary calling for payment of a total of $55,000 of which $10,450 remained unpaid.

On March 6, 2000 Christian Brothers "demanded payment of the remaining $10,450," but "Stenco thereafter has refused to pay the balance of the sum," court papers stated.

Christian Brothers asked the court to order the defendants to pay that amount in damages, plus interest, costs and any other relief as determined by the court.

Marjorie Sebreros sued Christian Brothers on July 17, 2002, charging that Christian Brothers was responsible for causing her physical injuries and property damage, in a vehicle accident in Ontario, California. Even this relatively minor sort of litigation should concern current and potential customers of Christian Brothers. If a Christian Brothers vehicle is on its way to your job site and is involved in an injury accident, a clever lawyer can and will name your company, in addition to Christian Brothers, as defendants in the lawsuit. (Case #RCV064953)

In 2001, Simac Construction hired Christian Brothers to perform construction work on the "Souplantation" Restaurant in Los Angeles County. After Christian Brothers was paid $44,264 for five months of work, Christian Brothers insisted they were still owed another $44,320. Even though Christian Brothers’ dispute was with Simac Construction, Christian Brothers responded by filing a lien against the restaurant’s property and then sued both Simac and the restaurant owner. Christian Brothers also claimed they had been "prevented or excused" from performing "all of its obligations." (Case# PC028681Y)

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 16 days later. (Case #362050)

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. (Case #GIC 763341)

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 over $570,000. 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# PC026094Z)

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)

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 damages. D & D also alleged that Christian Brothers’ complaint was barred by reason of the "failure of consideration in the ... performance of the ... contracts."