Spring 2015
Construction Law Newsletter  
& Georgia Construction Law Update 
Official Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association Construction Law Section
Recent Court of Appeals Ruling Establishes Personal Liability for Construction Company Obligations
By Erin Graham Watstein, Associate, Troutman Sanders LLP

Although it sounds - and should be - elementary, a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals serves as a not-so-gentle reminder about the importance of reading the provisions of any contract you sign. More specifically, the Court's holding in Progressive Electrical Services, Inc. v. Task Force Construction, Inc., should give subcontractors an incentive to thoroughly read and understand every contract provision in their contracts lest they fall "victim" to some tricky and potentially onerous contract terms.

The facts of Progressive v. Task Force are somewhat commonplace: Task Force Construction, Inc. ("Task Force") the general contractor on a public works project in Swainsboro, Georgia, contracted with Progressive Electrical Services, Inc. ("Progressive") to be its electrical subcontractor. Progressive, in turn, entered into a separate contract with a supplier for the purchase of materials.

Multiple Lien Filings Forfeits Lien Rights 
By R. Daniel Douglass, Stites & Harbison, PLLC

The Georgia Court of Appeals' decision in Seaboard Construction Co. v. Kent Realty Brunswick, LLC, A14A1615, 2015 WL 1432548 (March 30, 2015), deals with the limit on aggregate liens under O.C.G.A. � 44-14-361.1(e). It also touches on slander of title claims based on invalid liens. The court's application of the lien statute is surprising and may be attributable to the unusual facts of the case.

The lien claimant (Seaboard) performed site work on a large residential development consisting of five separate properties owned by four different entities. There was an agreed contract balance of $326,661.50 remaining unpaid when a dispute arose between the parties. The contractor filed five liens against the five separate properties, each in the full amount of the unpaid balance. The defendant (Kent) owned two of the properties. Therefore, the aggregate amount of liens against the defendant's properties was twice the contract balance. The aggregate amount of liens on all five properties was five times the contract balance.

Low-voltage Licensees: On-Site, All The Time?
By Cody S. Wigington

As a lawyer who represents construction companies in litigation matters, a great additional piece of client service is the ability to advise clients on Georgia construction licensing statutes and regulations. For those who are altogether unfamiliar with the licensing statutes and regulations, start with Title 43, Articles 14, 15, and 41 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, then migrate your study to Section 121 of the Georgia Rules of Regulations. A critical reading of these statutes and regulations will quickly reveal many uncertainties that leave a lawyer wondering whether a license is needed, and, if so, how the client should staff projects that require a license.

This article has two goals: (1) to present alternative solutions for eliminating some of the regulatory uncertainty caused by the provisions of Title 43, Article 14 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and Section 121 of the Georgia Rules of Regulations and (2) to provide information for attorneys to use when consulting with a client seeking legal advice concerning whether the client is required to have a low-voltage licensee on a job site during the performance of all low-voltage contracting work.

Recent Court of Appeals Ruling Clarifies Pleading Requirements for Quantum Meruit Claims
By Eleanor L. deGolian, Associate, Alston & Bird LLP

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently clarified pleading requirements for quantum meruit claims, claims based on the theory that a party is entitled to receive payment for uncompensated services that a recipient requested or accepted, where the provider expected compensation at the time of performance. Specifically, the Court of Appeals affirmed that a party is not required to plead a quantum meruit claim in a separate count from a breach of contract claim, but must only set forth a claim for relief.

In One Bluff Drive, LLC et al. v. K.A.P., Inc., 330 Ga. App. 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014), K.A.P., Inc. ("KAP"), a general contractor, contracted with One Bluff Drive, LLC ("One Bluff") to supervise improvements to a Savannah, Georgia home. After KAP commenced work, One Bluff significantly broadened the project's scope to include an additional floor. Following the scope expansion, KAP presented a base bid of $1,092,943, which represented the estimated cost to complete the project. However, this bid was based on limited information, in part due to One Bluff having changed architects mid-project.

In This Issue
2015-2016 Section Board of Directors

Chair
C. Damon Gunnels

Vice Chair-Chair-Elect
Frank E. Riggs Jr. 

Secretary/Treasurer
Christy Sanders 

Immediate Past Chair
Herbert H. Gray III

Members at Large
Erick B. Coleman
David R. Cook Jr. 
R. Daniel Douglass
Jason D. McLarry
Garrett Miller
W. Henry Parkman 
Lynn C. Stewart
Carolyn Wingfield
Follow Us

Like us on Facebook   Follow us on Twitter    View our profile on LinkedIn