In Kasinecz v. Duffy, 2013 IL App (2d) 121329-U, an August 2013 Second District case, a contractor suffered a three-pronged defeat in his lawsuit against a homeowner. The Court affirmed the lower court’s bench trial judgment for the homeowner on the contractor’s breach of contract, mechanics’ lien and quantum meruit claims.
Facts: This is the second appeal involving the parties. In 2004, defendant hired plaintiff to build a house pursuant to a verbal agreement which was later formalized in a written contract. The contract required the plaintiff to submit invoices to defendant before defendant was obligated to pay plaintiff. Kasinecz, ¶ 20. Over several months, the plaintiff and his crew built part of the house until a payment dispute arose. Plaintiff walked off the job and sued for breach of contract, mechanics lien foreclosure and quantum meruit. The trial court entered a directed finding for the homeowner half-way through the first bench trial (because the contractor materially breached by failing to furnish a statutory lien waiver, among other reasons) and plaintiff appealed.
In the first appeal, the Second District reversed on the ground that it was unclear whether defendant homeowner requested a sworn statement and because the factual record was too scant to uphold judgment in total for the defendant. Kasinecz, ¶ 6. On remand, the trial court received additional witness testimony and written submissions and again entered judgment for defendant. This time, the Second District affirmed.
Reasoning: The Court sided with the homeowner on all three of the contractor’s claims.
(1) Breach of Contract: the contractor materially breached (and therefore, couldn’t prove that he performed) the contract by not providing invoices to the defendant as required by the contract. Kasinecz, ¶¶ 21-23. The contractor admitted at trial that he didn’t supply invoices until after he walked off the job. Since the contractor breached, he couldn’t prevail on his breach of contract claim.
(2) Mechanics’ Lien claim: The contractor lost his lien claim because he didn’t substantially perform. A necessary condition to mechanics lien recovery is substantial completion of the contract. Id., ¶ 25; Fieldcrest Builders, Inc. v. Antonucci, 311 Ill.App.3d 597 (1999)(note: Fieldcrest provides a thorough discussion of substantial completion/quantum meruit issues in the context of a construction case). Here, the Court found there were holes in the roof, no windows or doors were installed, and the house lacked interior mechanical systems and finishes. Id., ¶¶ 25-26. Because the house was so incomplete when plaintiff and crew stopped work, plaintiff couldn’t show substantial performance. This doomed his mechanics’ lien count. Id., ¶ 25.
(3) Quantum meruit – the Court also rejected plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim based on the black-letter principle that quantum meruit recovery won’t apply where an express contract governs the parties’ relationship. Kasinecz, ¶ 29; Installco Inc. v. Whiting Corp., 336 Ill.App.3d 776 (2002). Since plaintiff and defendant had a written (express) contract for plaintiff to build defendant’s house, this defeated plaintiff’s quantum meruit count. The fact that plaintiff couldn’t enforce the contract (since he breached it) doesn’t matter: the contract’s existence alone defeats the quantum meruit claim. Kasinecz, ¶ 29.
Law of the Case. The plaintiff contractor argued that the Second District’s reversal in his favor on the first appeal was law of the case to the trial court on remand and even moved for summary judgment immediately upon remand. Id., ¶¶ 7, 14-15. The law of the case doctrine provides that questions of law actually determined in a prior appeal are binding on the trial court on remand as well as on subsequent appeals. Id., Kreutzer v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2012 IL App (2d) 110619. Both the trial and appeals court found that the law of the case rule didn’t apply because the issues decided in the first appeal (whether the parties had an oral contract and whether the contractor provided statutory lien waivers) differed from the second appeal’s salient issues (whether plaintiff submitted invoices to defendant and whether plaintiff substantially performed). Kasinecz, at ¶¶ 15, 20.
Take-aways: A material breach will preclude contractual recovery; a contractor’s failure to substantially perform will doom a mechanics’ lien suit; and quantum meruit and a breach of express contract claim are mutually repugnant: they can’t co-exist. The Court did appear to express surprise that the contractor didn’t argue that the homeowner waived strict compliance with the contract’s invoicing requirement. The defendant made several progress payments to the plaintiff without first receiving invoices. This would seem to give rise to a waiver of strict compliance argument. However, since the contractor never argued waiver, the Court didn’t tip its hand as to how it would rule on the issue.