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
Construction Contract

Hackler v. Tangeman

Published: Aug. 24, 2004 | Result Date: Mar. 4, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 246013AEW Bench Decision –  $30,393

Judge

Arthur E. Wallace

Court

Kern Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William L. Alexander


Defendant

N. Thomas McCartney


Facts

The subject suit is a commercial dispute between the general contractor, the plaintiff, an office tenant and the defendant stemming from a construction contract for tenant improvements. The case involved an office complex located in Bakersfield. The plaintiff, Marcus Hackler, was hired by the defendant Scott Tangeman to make tenant improvements to dental offices. Pursuant to incomplete plans presented to Hackler by the defendant, Hackler and the defendant entered into a written contract on June 26, 2001. Hackler performed his work in accordance with the plans provided by the defendant and specifically in accordance with the instructions and directions provided by the defendant. The issues were whether Hackler was entitled to the $30,420, admittedly never paid to Hackler by the defendant under the contract; whether Hackler was entitled to net extra work provided by Hackler but never paid by the defendant, and whether the defendant was entitled to any offsets for expenses incurred by the defendant for work related to the compressed air lines, for the floor sink or for cabinets not constructed or installed.

Settlement Discussions

There were at least two mandatory settlement conferences. The plaintiff lowered his demand to $18,000, and the defendant lowered his offer to settle at $6,000.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed approximately $30,420 in damages plus $10,000 in extras, less an unknown amount for allowable offsets, plus prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

Result

The plaintiff was awarded $30,392 in damages; attorney fees of $18,227; prejudgment interest of $6,819 and other costs of $1,347 for a total of $56,787.

Other Information

At a non-binding arbitration, the plaintiff had been awarded $15,000. He then filed a request for trial de novo after retaining new counsel. The defendant filed a Chapter 13 petition in bankruptcy when the plaintiff began enforcement action. This petition is still pending.


#97993

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

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