Litigation

LITIGATION

COURT CASES ARE RUINING THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

The Contractors Critic views court cases and liens as a plague on our construction industry. Contractors, employees, employee organizations and customers should be working together to settle their differences outside of the courthouse. However, the trend in our industry is towards more court suits, not fewer. Marvin W. Mielke, Inc. is one of the contractors who has resorted to suing its customers and fellow contractors. This concerns the Critic, and should concern present and potential future customers of Marvin W. Mielke— and their ally— Tradesmen International. As the Engineering News-Record of February 15, 1999 editorialized:

If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem will look like a nail. When it comes to the construction industry, the main dispute resolution tool remains a lawyer, and every disagreement still looks like a lawsuit…. Lawsuits go against the basic nature of the industry. Construction is not an individual endeavor… but rather a business of team building.... Successful teams and projects are built on the strengths of each member, while lawsuits and unsuccessful projects are founded on the weaknesses of team members…. A decade or more may pass before there is any resolution of a dispute by the courts, leaving no one a winner. Some industry sources claim that the tide of dispute resolution may be turning back towards the courts. This may indicate that the industry has become too complacent… to combat creeping litigiousness.

The Critic could not agree more with this Engineering News-Record editorial. These are the reasons why the Critic devotes so much of its resources to researching and publishing details on litigation in the construction industry. Here are some recently discovered examples of court suits involving Marvin W. Mielke.

The following lawsuits are a sampling of Marvin W. Mielke, Inc.’s various legal problems.

Marvin W. Mielke DID NOT PAY ITS BILLS
JACCO & ASSOCIATES, INC. V Marvin W. Mielke, INC.

In this suit filed on June 12, 2002, Jacco & Associates’ court complaint charges that Marvin W. Mielke did not pay for $78,385 worth of goods and materials. Jacco & Associates delivered the materials to the Look Restaurant job site at 1869A, West 25th Street in Cleveland, OH.

While this kind of suit may not seem like a major situation, Marvin W. Mielke’s failure to pay bills in a timely manner could have severe consequences for the construction customer. An unpaid supplier or subcontractor would be entitled to file a lien against the customer’s property.

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’s practices are likely to cause liens to be filed against its customers. A lien against your property as a result of a construction payment dispute, is as effective a claim against your equity as a bank’s mortgage, according to the Engineering News-Record. (Case #CV02473022)

THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR REFUSES TO PAY MARVIN W. MIELKE’S BILLS
MARVIN W. MIELKE, INC. V PYROTECH SERVICES

Marvin W. Mielke, Inc. filed this May 15, 2001 court suit in Cuyahoga County, OH. Pyrotech Services was the general contractor for the Hi-Tech Metal Group third furnace replacement project. Pyrotech Services, in turn, subcontracted Marvin W. Mielke, Inc. for certain labor and materials. According to Marvin W. Mielke’s court complaint, Pyrotech failed to pay Marvin W. Mielke, Inc. $12,483, even though Pyrotech had been paid by the client. (Case #439060)

Mielke CLAIMS THEY HIRED AN INCOMPETENT EQUIPMENT SHIPPER
Marvin W. Mielke V FORTRESS ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION CORP.

Marvin W. Mielke originally hired Fortress Environmental to store, rig and deliver two air-cool chillers and other equipment to the Avon Lake High School project. When vandals damaged the coolers and other equipment turned out to be lost or missing, Marvin W. Mielke blamed Fortress Environmental for those problems.

Marvin W. Mielke sued Fortress Environmental in December 2001, asking for $112,420 in damages. (Case #456537)

MARVIN W. MIELKE V RONALD GALL

This case was filed in 1997 over a disputed $3,000. (Case #97CVI01518 & Case #97CVH01984)

MARVIN W. MIELKE, INC. V DENNIS MITCHELL

A grand total of $600 was at stake in this case. (Case #90CV101357)

MARVIN W. MIELKE, INC. V LOUIS SMITH

This case was filed over $700. (Case #88CVG00767)

MARVIN W. MIELKE V MEDINA GLASS BLOCKS

Another frivolous lawsuit for an amount of only $1,000. (Case #87CVI00219)

At least four of these court cases are instances of Marvin W. Mielke dragging another party into court over petty amounts as low as a few hundred dollars. Some observers may read this litany of court cases and think that Marvin W. Mielke had to sue all of their deadbeat customers and suppliers. However, in the Critic’s experience, on some occasions, these kinds of disputes over the price of services rendered are at time indicative of a hidden dispute over the quality of the construction services that were provided.

The sparse court record in these particular examples of Marvin W. Mielke’s litigation does not provide evidence that Marvin W. Mielke’s services in this matter was faulty. However, in the Critic’s opinion, if a construction company has to sue several other parties for nonpayment, that may be an indication that the quality of their construction may bear investigation and further research.