Amy Shairs and her father Edmund Skoniecki bought an older two-bedroom home in Beverly, MA. Amy signed a contract with M. Beane Construction, LLC to renovate just the first floor of the two-story home. The contract price was $79,086. To save money, Amy said she and friends would do the interior demolition. That was 2019.
Shairs and her friends gutted the first floor, as promised. But she didn’t stop there. She also gutted the second floor. That shouldn’t be a problem. Beane could still work on the first floor as required by their contract. But there was a surprise.
Demolition on the second floor had compromised stability of the home. A structural engineer recommended significant repairs so the job could pass inspection. Beane did repair work recommended by the engineer. Shairs was kept informed and understood repairs were needed because of what she and her friends had done on the second floor. None of these structural repairs were covered by the original contract.
On completion, Shairs paid the original contract price but not an extra $38,268 Beane Construction claimed for structural work. Shairs and her father had no complaint about the job and acknowledged an increase in the property value. But they wouldn’t pay for Beane’s structural repair work. Beane Construction filed suit against both Shairs and her father to collect.
Two Issues
At trial, Shairs and Skoniecki denied liability for the extra work. Massachusetts General Laws 142A requires a written agreement for home improvement work valued at over $1,000. Nothing in writing covered the structural repairs. There was no written change order. Home improvement work done without a written agreement in Massachusetts is "an unfair or deceptive act" under General Laws 93A. That gives an owner the right to seek triple damages and attorney's fees.
Second, only Shairs signed the contract. Her father was also an owner. But his signature wasn’t on the agreement. He declined liability for any part of the unpaid balance.
How would you decide this case?
The trial court found both father and daughter liable for the extra work. On appeal, Judge Stark affirmed the trial court decision. Massachusetts home improvement contracts are not invalid for failure to comply with General Laws 142A. From the February 7, 2025 decision:
“There is no dispute here, and the trial judge properly found, that the plaintiff and defendant . . . entered into a valid contract . . . Nor is there a dispute that Shairs opened a can of worms when she chose, on her own and without any consultation from her contractor, to completely gut the second floor of the home. Shairs’ actions caused major structural issues with the home that needed to be repaired to pass inspection . . .”
Judge Stark found Edmund liable even without a signature:
“In this case, plaintiff brought a claim against defendant Skoniecki for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. To recover, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that: (1) he conferred a measurable benefit upon Skoniecki; (2) he reasonably expected compensation from Skoniecki; and (3) Skoniecki accepted the benefit with the knowledge, actual or chargeable, of his reasonable expectation.”
Decisions Good and Bad
I like the court’s decision. Beane Construction did several things right. They offered good professional advice. They did good work. And they got paid for work done. But the case was in Massachusetts courts for over five years. What could Beane Construction have done to avoid that?
My recommendation: When it was obvious that extra work was needed, the job needed either a signed change order or a new contract. True, the original contract had a clause on extra work: “Any alterations and/or additions to the scope of the work described above will be billed to the homeowner on a time and materials basis. This rate will include all materials in addition to labor costs of $55/hour/worker.” Judge Stark’s decision cited that clause to support a conclusion there was a written agreement on extra work. But time and material contracts for home improvement jobs aren’t allowed under Massachusetts General Laws 142A, § 2(a)(5) unless the contract includes a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). There was none in this case.
It’s easy to avoid problems like these. Construction Contract Writer drafts letter-perfect agreements for any type of project in any state. The trial version is free.
Shairs and her friends gutted the first floor, as promised. But she didn’t stop there. She also gutted the second floor. That shouldn’t be a problem. Beane could still work on the first floor as required by their contract. But there was a surprise.
Demolition on the second floor had compromised stability of the home. A structural engineer recommended significant repairs so the job could pass inspection. Beane did repair work recommended by the engineer. Shairs was kept informed and understood repairs were needed because of what she and her friends had done on the second floor. None of these structural repairs were covered by the original contract.
On completion, Shairs paid the original contract price but not an extra $38,268 Beane Construction claimed for structural work. Shairs and her father had no complaint about the job and acknowledged an increase in the property value. But they wouldn’t pay for Beane’s structural repair work. Beane Construction filed suit against both Shairs and her father to collect.
Two Issues
At trial, Shairs and Skoniecki denied liability for the extra work. Massachusetts General Laws 142A requires a written agreement for home improvement work valued at over $1,000. Nothing in writing covered the structural repairs. There was no written change order. Home improvement work done without a written agreement in Massachusetts is "an unfair or deceptive act" under General Laws 93A. That gives an owner the right to seek triple damages and attorney's fees.
Second, only Shairs signed the contract. Her father was also an owner. But his signature wasn’t on the agreement. He declined liability for any part of the unpaid balance.
How would you decide this case?
The trial court found both father and daughter liable for the extra work. On appeal, Judge Stark affirmed the trial court decision. Massachusetts home improvement contracts are not invalid for failure to comply with General Laws 142A. From the February 7, 2025 decision:
“There is no dispute here, and the trial judge properly found, that the plaintiff and defendant . . . entered into a valid contract . . . Nor is there a dispute that Shairs opened a can of worms when she chose, on her own and without any consultation from her contractor, to completely gut the second floor of the home. Shairs’ actions caused major structural issues with the home that needed to be repaired to pass inspection . . .”
Judge Stark found Edmund liable even without a signature:
“In this case, plaintiff brought a claim against defendant Skoniecki for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. To recover, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that: (1) he conferred a measurable benefit upon Skoniecki; (2) he reasonably expected compensation from Skoniecki; and (3) Skoniecki accepted the benefit with the knowledge, actual or chargeable, of his reasonable expectation.”
Decisions Good and Bad
I like the court’s decision. Beane Construction did several things right. They offered good professional advice. They did good work. And they got paid for work done. But the case was in Massachusetts courts for over five years. What could Beane Construction have done to avoid that?
My recommendation: When it was obvious that extra work was needed, the job needed either a signed change order or a new contract. True, the original contract had a clause on extra work: “Any alterations and/or additions to the scope of the work described above will be billed to the homeowner on a time and materials basis. This rate will include all materials in addition to labor costs of $55/hour/worker.” Judge Stark’s decision cited that clause to support a conclusion there was a written agreement on extra work. But time and material contracts for home improvement jobs aren’t allowed under Massachusetts General Laws 142A, § 2(a)(5) unless the contract includes a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). There was none in this case.
It’s easy to avoid problems like these. Construction Contract Writer drafts letter-perfect agreements for any type of project in any state. The trial version is free.
No comments:
Post a Comment