M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Home
Verdicts
and
Decisions
Search Database
Recent Cases
Cases By Subject
Report A Case
Lawyers
Search Directory
By State & City
Add A
Lawyer Listing
Court
Reporters
Recent Listings
Search
By States & City
Add A Basic
Reporter Listing
Expert
Witnesses
Recent Listings
Search Directory
By State & Expertise
Add A Basic
Expert Witness
Listing
MoreLaw
Store
The Store
Recent Listings
(Search)
Add A Basic
Classified Ad
Links
County Seats
State Links
Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw


Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 09-01-2012

Case Style: CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC v. Rainer Gerlach

Case Number: CJ-2009-2173

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kenneth E. Crump, Jr., Barber & Bartz, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Lee Ira Levinson and Terence Patrick Brennan, Levinson Smith & Huffman, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC sued Rainer Gerlach and Janet Gerlach on a breach of contract theory.

Defendants courter-claimed on Oklahoma Consumter Protection Act and Home Repair Fraud Act theories.

1. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Contract for a new roof on July 15, 2008. This Contract consisted of an Agreement and Buyer’s Right to Cancel document (See attached Exhibit A). This agreement included a payment for roof, gutters, exterior paint, and window screens.

2. The agreed-to price for the roof, gutters, exterior paint, and window screens was $21,560.51. (Ex. A)

3. On July 15, 2008, Defendants made a payment of $1,000.00 to PlaintifE (See attached Exhibit B)

4. On or about August 6, 2008, the materials for the roof were delivered. (See attached Exhibit C)

5. On or about August 18, 2008, Defendants made another payment of $6,669.77 to Plaintiff. (Ex. B)

6. On or about August 19, 2008, Plaintiff ceased work on Defendants’ roof despite incomplete chimney flashing, damage to Defendants’ ceiling, incomplete painting, and uninstalled guttering. @ C)

7. Plaintiff removed the Defendants’ wood shingles and replaced them with asphalt impact- resistant shingles. (See attached Exhibit D)

8. The Contract (Ex. A) requires that, prior to a change in materials, the revised cost and work to be performed must be submitted in a written change order and approved by Defendants. (Ex. A, p. 3)

9. No written change orders were ever submitted to Defendants. 10. Plaintiff invoiced Defendants on October 22, 2008, for $55,582.24. (See attached Exhibit E)

11. Plaintiff furnished an itemized statement to Defendants on October 22, 2008, labeled as “Roof Detail” in the amount of $43,017.38. (See attached Exhibit F) This invoice detailed a cost for wood shakes.

12. On November 12, 2008, Plaintiff submitted an invoice to Defendants in the amount of $42,594.53. (See attached Exhibit G)

13, On December 23, 2008, Plaintiff submitted an invoice to Defendants in the amount of $41,351.95. (See attached Exhibit H)

14. On January 6, 2009, Defendants made a payment to Plaintiff in the amount of $13,890.74 with a check labeled “paid in full.” Plaintiff accepted said payment. (See attached Exhibit I)

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2012 MoreLaw.com, Inc.