3 total
Owner's holdback calculated on actual costs as contract found to be costs-plus, not fixed-price.
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.
Appeal dismissed; will granting generous life interest to widow did not preclude her from accumulating wealth.
The appellants appealed a mid-trial Rule 21 motion decision interpreting their late father's will and codicil.
The trial judge found that the trusts created by the will, which granted a life interest to the testator's widow, did not preclude her from accumulating wealth from the trust funds.
The Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation, finding the testator intended to provide generously for his widow without requiring her to conserve the estate for the remainder beneficiaries.
The Court also rejected the appellants' argument that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the mid-trial motion, noting they had consented to the procedure, though the Court cautioned against mid-trial Rule 21 motions.
Estate litigants who delayed a core interpretation issue were ordered to pay motion costs.
Following a Rule 21 determination in estate litigation concerning whether trust monies paid to a life tenant could be accumulated, the successful defendants sought costs of the motion on a full indemnity basis.
The court held it was appropriate to fix costs immediately because the plaintiffs intended to appeal and the balance of the trial had been adjourned indefinitely.
Applying ordinary civil costs principles rather than the traditional estate-costs approach, the court found the plaintiffs acted unreasonably by failing to pursue an early interpretation issue and by framing the matter as a damages action rather than seeking directions.
Partial indemnity costs of $15,000 all-inclusive were awarded and charged against assets being held for the plaintiffs in the estates.
