3 total
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs following a motion with divided success and excessive fee claims.
This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the defendants successfully obtained a reduction in the quantum of a lien claim, though the lien itself was not discharged.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants sought costs, claiming success.
The court found that there was divided success on the underlying motion and noted the parties' failure to make bona fide efforts to settle costs.
Considering the proportionality, complexity, and importance of the issues, as well as the excessive hours and rates claimed by both parties, the court determined that a fit and just costs order was for each side to bear its own costs.
The court reduced the security posted to vacate a construction lien but refused to discharge it entirely due to triable issues regarding the contract's nature.
This is a construction lien action where the Defendants/Moving Parties sought an order discharging the lien or, in the alternative, reducing the security posted by Greatwise Developments Ltd. The Plaintiff agreed to a reduction of $250,000 due to an overlooked payment.
The court found significant factual disputes regarding whether the contract was fixed-price or cost-plus, and whether the Plaintiff abandoned the project, deeming these triable issues.
However, based on admitted errors and non-lienable items identified by the Defendants, the court ordered a further reduction of the security posted.
The motion to discharge the lien was dismissed, but the security was reduced from an initial $8,058,101.79 to $6,551,681.65.
Consumer Protection Act applies to residential cost-plus construction contracts, but whether budget items constitute estimates requires trial.
The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a construction lien action, seeking a determination that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied to their residential cost-plus construction contract and that the plaintiff breached the CPA by exceeding budget estimates by more than 10 percent.
The court granted the motion in part, declaring that the CPA applies to the contract and that it is a 'consumer agreement'.
However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the specific budget line items constituted 'estimates' under the CPA and whether the parties had agreed to amend those estimates during the project.
