Prompt Payment Statute Did Not Mean Fees Went to Plaintiff Winning Some Money.
In Angotti & Reilly v. Alexander Group, Case Nos. A127917/A128743 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for unpaid contractor fees under a construction contract with a fees clause, and defendant/cross-complainant countersued for defective work. Plaintiff obtained a $99,000 verdict for services rendered (not breach of contract), and defendant was awarded $129,700 for plaintiff’s breach of contract under the cross-complaint. The trial court awarded defendant/cross-complainant $528,410.54 in fees and costs, because cross-complainant received more in damages.
The appellate court affirmed, rebuffing plaintiff’s argument that it was mandatory that fees be awarded to plaintiff for its win under the construction prompt payment statutes. (We have blogged on this before; go to the home page search function and enter “prompt payment statutes” if you want to see our previous posts in this area.) The fee-shifting statute can be preempted if the contract of the parties expressly provides otherwise in writing, something that did occur here through the execution of certain change orders taking plaintiff’s dispute out of the prompt payment statutes. Fees/costs were properly denied as to plaintiff, with the adverse award against it being a big one.