4/11/2023 0 Comments Alpha omega constructionBurman twice wrote to John requesting information about the relationship between Greenwich and Alpha, and John responded that there was “no contract between Alpha Omega and Greenwich Northeast, Inc. Testimony revealed that by this time, John had moved to Florida and apparently closed his business. Burman testified that the first time he found out that a company other than Greenwich claimed to be involved in the project was when he received Alpha's letter of December 13, 2006, claiming a mechanic's lien. 6 In turn, John signed affidavits and waivers of liens on behalf of Greenwich. Burman paid Greenwich in full, in accordance with the terms of the fixed-price contract between the companies. When Angus specifically asked John about his relationship with Robert, John explained to him that he was training Robert to take over Greenwich.Į.W. Burman, and Cornelius DeBoer (DeBoer), the project's architect, all testified that they believed that Fred and Robert worked for John as employees of Greenwich and that none of them had been informed that there was a sub-subcontractor working on the project. Burman, Carl Angus (Angus), the project manager for E.W. 5 The subcontract prohibited Greenwich from assigning or subcontracting any of its work without Burman's written permission. Burman testified that as the general contractor his company entered into a subcontract for $103,000 with Greenwich to complete the masonry work for the project. The evidence consisted of testimony by Burman and others who worked on the project detailing their dealings with members of the Abatecola family. 4 On March 26, 2007, an order was entered directing plaintiff to show cause why the notice of intention, notice of lis pendens, and complaint to enforce the mechanic's lien should not be dismissed.Īn evidentiary hearing, based on the order to show cause, commenced before the trial justice on April 10, 2007. Burman argued that because the notice of intention was invalid the notice of lis pendens and the complaint to enforce the mechanic's lien should be discharged and dismissed, as well. Burman argued that the people who said they had worked on behalf of Alpha were employees of Greenwich and consequently were bound by lien waivers that Greenwich executed in exchange for payment. Burman when there was no contract between them. First, the company faulted Alpha for claiming to have completed work on the project for E.W. Burman argued that the notice of intention was defective on two grounds and that the complaint also was invalid. Burman filed a verified complaint seeking to dismiss and discharge Alpha's lien in accordance with the prompt post-deprivation procedure provided in G.L.1956 § 34-28-17.1. On March 7, 2007, Alpha recorded a notice of lis pendens in the land records for the City of Providence and filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking to enforce a mechanic's lien of $104,000 for masonry work on the mausoleum. On January 25, 2007, by certified mail, plaintiff notified Swan Point of its intention to claim a lien for nonpayment for its services. Fred and Robert allege that Alpha began working in April 2006 and completed its work on the project in October 2006. (Alpha or plaintiff), a company which he runs with his son, Robert Abatecola (Robert), was hired by Greenwich as a sub-subcontractor to assist with the masonry work on the project. Fred Abatecola (Fred), John's brother, claims that Alpha Omega Construction, Inc. (Greenwich), owned by John Abatecola (John), 2 for the project's masonry work. Burman subcontracted with Greenwich Northeast, Inc. Burman), a general contracting company that is operated by Edward Burman (Burman). The Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery (Swan Point) entered into a construction contract with E.W. The case was dismissed with prejudice by the Superior Court on July 2, 2007. This appeal seeks to revive an action to enforce a mechanic's lien resulting from the construction of a mausoleum and chapel in Swan Point Cemetery (project) in Providence. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. After hearing arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and we shall decide this appeal without further briefing and argument. This case came before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2008, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. Christopher Whitney, Providence, for Defendant. Roger LeBoeuf, Providence, for Plaintiff. Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ. The PROPRIETORS OF SWAN POINT CEMETERY and E.W.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |