Solar Applications Engineering v. T. A. Operating - The Appellate ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Plaintiff/Appellee/Petitioner: Solar Applications Engineering, Inc. IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Counsel for Petitioner in this Court: Douglas W. Alexander ALEXANDER DUBOSE JONES & TOWNSEND LLP 515 Congress Ave., Suite 1720 Austin, Texas 78701 Trial and Appellate Counsel for Petitioner: Jeff Small LAW OFFICE OF JEFF SMALL 12451 Starcrest Dr., Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78216-2988 Jonathan Yedor, Of Counsel ELMS * HARMON * MACCHIA, LLC 7800 I-H10 West, Suite 600 San Antonio, Texas 78230 Myron E. East, Jr. BARTON, SCHNEIDER & EAST, L.L.P. One Riverwalk Place 700 North St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1825 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Defendant/Appellant/Respondent: T.A. Operating Corporation Counsel for Respondent: R. Wes Johnson William W. Sommers The Gardner Law Firm 745 E. Mulberry, Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78212 Sharon E. Callaway Crofts & Callaway, P.C. 4040 Broadway, Suite 525 San Antonio, Texas 78209 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................ STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................ ISSUE PRESENTED.................................................... iv vi vi vi Is a general contractor who has substantially performed a construction contract required to provide lien releases from it and its subcontractors as a condition to sue an owner who has refused to pay for work done? STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................2 ARGUMENT...........................................................3 I. This Court should grant review because this case presents an issue of first impression of substantial importance in the construction industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. The construction contract did not require the general contractor and its subcontractors to release their liens at a time when the owner was refusing to pay any portion of the remaining balance due under the contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. Reading the contract as a whole, the“express condition precedent” was never triggered ...............................................6 B. The contract does not require the general contractor to release liens when, as here, the owner unilaterally terminates the contract and refuses to make further payment ......................................10 C. The Court should reasonably interpret the contract in a manner that preserves the mechanic’s lien rights of the general contractor and its subcontractors ..............................................11 ii
Page 1: NO. 06-0243 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 5 and 6: INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Atkinson
Page 7 and 8: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the
Page 9 and 10: providing that any damages recovere
Page 11 and 12: 212-213 (1891); Atkinson v. Jackson
Page 13 and 14: concerned.” Atkinson v. Jackson B
Page 15 and 16: completed most of the items that it
Page 17 and 18: formal Application for Final Paymen
Page 19 and 20: will result in a contract in terms
Page 21 and 22: and withheld from distribution to S
Page 23 and 24: Respectfully submitted, ALEXANDER D

Solar Applications Engineering v. T. A. Operating - The Appellate ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?