Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 
 

Owner's Nonpayment Did Not Involve Retainage Retainage; Attorney Fees

Saturday, September 03, 2005 04:01 pm

 
Owner's Nonpayment Did Not Involve Retainage Retainage; Attorney Fees

Another California court has ruled that a state prompt payment act applied only to funds retained from periodic progress payments.

Michael Karah hired Mark Pasternak to install fencing and make other improvements to a vineyard in Sonoma County. The oral agreement did not address the timing of payments.

Pasternak performed the work and presented Karah with a bill for $24,158. Karah paid only $16,306. Pasternak went to court and obtained a judgment against Karah in the amount of $12,000. The award was silent regarding recovery of attorney fees.

Pasternak cont [...]

 
› Next article: 
 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
 
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close