This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Mechanics Liens

Siew Hwa Lichtenstein v. Shelter and Energy Systems, Steve Maffin, Amaury Crivelari, Crivelari Construction and Hauling, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive

Published: Jun. 14, 2008 | Result Date: Apr. 21, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG06282165 combination with RG06284144 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Francis M. McKeown


Defendant

Bill D. Nelson

Peggy Chang


Experts

Defendant

David Jackowitz
(technical)

Facts

In 2005, plaintiff Siew Hwa Lichtenstein hired Steve Maffin to consult regarding construction work on her rental property on Fairmont Avenue in Oakland. Lichenstein accepted a bid from Amaury Crivelari to provide concrete work for $123,000. Crivelari began the work, but performed extra work that brought the rental to $175,000. Lichenstein paid $155,000 but did not pay the entire amount that Crivelari billed. Lichtenstein declined to sign a contract offered by S.E.S., Inc. Maffin and Crivelari stopped working on the project and Lichenstein hired another contractor who finished the job.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Lichenstein sued Maffin and his contracting company Shelter and Energy Systems Inc. for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that Maffin misled her into believing that the construction would be completed for no more than $300,000, and that he abandoned the project without completion. She also sued Crivelari and his company for breach of contract and over-payment alleging she was improperly charged for extra work which she did not approve, and that he abandoned the projected without completion.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defense counsel for Maffin argued that Maffin and S.E.S., Inc. did never had a contract with and did not defraud Lichenstein.

Defense counsel for Crivelari contended that Crivelari gave Lichenstein notice of extra work that needed to be done before he performed it. Crivelari also filed an action to foreclose on a mechanic's lien on the remaining sums on Lichenstein's bill, $20,165.25, which was consolidated with Lichenstein's case.

Injuries

Lichenstein sought $165,000 from Maffin and his company for the costs in excess of $300,000 to complete the project; $55,000 for lost rental income; and unspecified damages for fraud. From Crivelari and his company, Lichenstein sought $17,500 for completion of the construction, and reimbursement of the difference of the amount she paid and value of Crivelari's work.

Result

The jury returned a unanimous (12-0) verdict for Maffin and Crivelari awarding Crivelari $20,165.25 and costs and fees to both defendants.

Deliberation

three hours

Length

10 days


#102915

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390