The plaintiff subcontractor sought payment from the owner's holdback funds after the general contractor failed to pay for work on a restaurant construction project.
The court determined that the contract between the owner and general contractor was not a fixed-price contract but rather a costs-plus arrangement, meaning the owner's 10% holdback obligation was calculated based on the total actual costs incurred.
The court also found the owner was not liable for a further notice holdback because it did not receive written notice of the liens in the prescribed form.
Finally, the court interpreted trust agreements between the owner and other subcontractors who had discharged their liens, awarding them payments from the trust funds based on the specific terms of their respective agreements.
