Date: 06-09-2013

Case Style: Paula Sue Miesowitz v. Greater Plumbing, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2012-3635

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott Riley Eudey and Melinda Aycock

Defendant's Attorney: Gregory V. Copeland and R. Svott Williams for Greater Plumbing, Inc. and Roug Rankin

Hugh E. Hood for Myron Cole II and Holly Cole

Description: Paula Sue Miesowitz, as trustee of the Gray Family Revocable Trust Dated 5/12/93 sued Greater Plumbing, Inc., Doug Rankin, Coles Quality Construction, Inc., Myron Cole II and Holly Cole on breach of fidicuiary duty and express and implied contract, frudulent inducement, fraud, constructive fraud, unjust enrichman, slander of title, sham process, and negligence theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff, Paula Sue Miesowitz, is a trustee of the Gray Family Revocable Trust dated 5/12/93 and is and was a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

2. Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc. is an Oklahoma Corporation doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Defendant, Rankin, is an individual who is employed with Greater Plumbing, located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant to this lawsuit. On information and belief, Rankin is a primary shareholder and President of Greater Plumbing.

4. Defendant, Cole’s Construction, is an Oklahoma Corporation doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Defendants, the Coles, are husband and wife and individuals who are employed with Cole’s Construction located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant to this lawsuit. On information and belief, the Coles are primary shareholders and/or owners of Cole’s Construction.

6. All acts, omissions and occurrences complained of herein occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

7. Based upon the foregoing, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein and venue is proper Tulsa County District Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length.

9. Cole Construction is a construction company that offers services to the general public for various building projects, and commonly acts as a general contractor for new construction.

10. That Plaintiff entered an agreement on or about February 25, 2011 with Cole Construction for a new construction, known as the Gray Family Trust Home (“Grey Trust Home”), located at 1721 5. Date Avenue, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.

11. That as general contractor for Plaintiff’s new construction, Cole’s Construction accepted a bid and hired Greater Plumbing to perform certain work on the Grey Trust Home. Particularly, Greater Plumbing was to do the “rough in” portion of the plumbing construction in the Grey Trust Home.

12. That during Greater Plumbing’s performance of the “rough in” they received red tags from the City of Broken Arrow, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

13. That subsequently after Greater Plumbing received the red tags on the work performed, Cole’s Construction fired Greater Plumbing from performing any further tasks on the Grey Trust Home, and no further work was performed on behalf of Greater Plumbing.

14. That on April 5, 2011, Cole’s Construction tendered a check to Greater Plumbing in the amount of $5,800.00 (Five-Thousand, eight hundred dollars) for all work performed on the Grey Trust Home up to the point of firing. Rankin cashed the check on April 7, 2011. Attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.

15. That on July 25, 2011, Rankin, d/b/a Greater Plumbing filed a Mechanic’s or Materialman’s Lien with the Tulsa County Assessor’s Office document number 2011010580. Attached hereto as “Exhibit C”.

16. That Plaintiff contacted Rankdin dlb/a Greater Plumbing in an attempt to have the lien released since Greater Plumbing was compensated for all the work they did perform and the lien has resulted on a cloud of Plaintiff’s title, and was met with no response.

17. That since that time, Cole Construction has failed to correct the faulty work performed by Greater Plumbing and Plaintiff has spent almost $25,000.00 to correct said faulty work.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Dup’ and Express/Implied Contracts

18. Paragraphs 1-15 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length.

19. Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff

20. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations to Plaintiff by, and among other things, failing to properly design, plan, supervise, monitor, inspect, repair, construct and complete the plumbing of the Grey Trust Home in an acceptable and workmanlike manner, free from faults and defects. Additionally, Cole’s Construction has fbrther failed to uphold their oral and written assurances regarding the completion and costs associated with the plumbing of the home.

21. Defendants impliedly breached their obligation to Plaintiff by incorporating defective plumbing, materials and workmanship into the construction of the home.

22. Defendants expressly and impliedly breached their obligations to Plaintiff by failing and refUsing to timely complete, and!or otherwise correct the remaining faults and defects of the plumbing in the home.

23, As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of their duties and contractual obligations, Owners have suffered and continue to suffer, substantial damages including, but not limited to, the cost of completing the home, the cost of repairing significant defects, additional interest expense from delay, loss of the home’s value/merchantabilty, loss of use of the home, loss of enjoyment, plus past and ongoing aggravation and distress. Such damages are in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 for all actual and consequential damages. Owners also seek an award of all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraudulent Inducement, Fraud and/or Constructive Fraud

24. Paragraphs 1-21 are incorporated by reference as though frilly set forth at length.

25. As described herein, at various times throughout the negotiation, execution of the agreement(s) and construction of the home, the Defendants did knowingly, willingly and/or negligently make material omissions and/or misrepresentations. Upon infonnation and belief, such omissions and misrepresentations include, but are not limited to:

(a) Cole Construction’s continual and consistent assurances that the construction of the home would be completed in a timely manner;

(b) Greater Plumbing’s assertions that they were a competent company capable of installing correct plumbing materials into Plaintiffs home;

(c) Cole Construction’s deliberate abandonment of the project and refusal to communicate any further with Plaintiff despite inquiries made. Plaintiff experienced such silence from Defendants after they successfully obtained signatures upon the agreements described herein and/or after Defendants received one or more scheduled payments;

(d) Cole Construction’s consistent assurances that the home would be completed and necessary repairs made;

(e) Cole Construction’s statements and assurances that they would fulfill their obligations to compensate Owners for loss and damages that occurred during construction; and


(f) Statements and assurances that the Coles would personally oversee the construction of Owner’s home.

26. The Defendants made the misrepresentations and omissions described herein with the intent that they would be relied upon and acted upon by Owners, and, furthermore, Owners did act in reliance upon such misrepresentations and omissions to their ongoing detriment. Such circumstances constitute fraudulent inducement, fraud and/or constmctive fraud.

27. As a direct result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Owners have suffered damages in an amount in excess of$lO,000,00

28. The Defendants’ actions and/or failure to act described herein constitutes an intentional, wanton and reckless disregard for the rights and well-being of the Plaintiff. Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have and continue to engage in a habit and/or routine practice of such wanton behavior in dealing with others. As such, Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendants for their conduct and to act as a safeguard for the public at large be deterring similar conduct in nature.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence

29. Paragraphs I through 28 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.

30. That Plaintiff entered an agreement on February 25, 2011 with Cole Construction for a new constmction, known as the Gray Family Trust Home (“Grey Trust Home”), located at 1721 S. Date Avenue, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.

31. That Cole’s Construction made assertions they would oversee all work done on the Grey Trust Home and that Greater Plumbing was a competent company with the ability to install plumbing in the home to Plaintiffs specifications.

32. Defendants negligently failed to properly supervise and oversee the installation of plumbing materials in a workmanlike manner.

33. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in an amount exceeding Ten Thousand and No/l00 Dollars ($10,000.00).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Duty to Deal in Good Faith/ Tortious Breach of Contract

34. Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length.

35. The Defendants in this action owed Plaintiff a duty, both express and implied, to cooperate and deal with Plaintiff fairly and in good faith.

36. The Defendants’ actions as described herein not only constitute fraud, negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranties, but also a breach of the Defendants’ express and implied covenant and duty to deal fairly and in good faith with Plaintiff Such actions and/or failure to act were intentional, calculated and in wanton disregard of the rights and well-being of the Plaintiff.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ bad faith, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of Ten Thousand and No/tOO Dollars ($10,000.00). Further, upon information and belief, Defendants have an continue to engage in a habit andlor routine practice of such wanton behavior in dealing with others. As such Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendants for their conduct and to act as a safeguard for the public at large by deterring similar conduct in the fhture

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unjust Enrichment

38. Paragraphs 1-37 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length.

39. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions and failure to act described herein, Defendants and subcontractors received unjust payment and financial gain. 40, Also, as a result of Defendants’ unlawful and tortuous conduct, Defendants were unjustly enriched at the loss and expense of Owners. Such unjust enrichment is in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($10,000.00).

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Slander of Title/Sham Process

41. Paragraphs 1-40 are incorporated by reference as though fUlly set forth at length.

42. Cole Construction tendered an amount of $5,800.00 for work performed to date to Greater Plumbing, of which Rankin d/b/a Greater Plumbing cashed on April 7, 2011.

43. On July 25, 2011, Rankin d/b/a Greater Plumbing filed the referenced lien (See Exhibit C) on the Grey Trust Home for an amount he claimed due and owing, of which he already been paid.

44. Further, Rankin added an invoice dated June 6,2011, which could not pertain to work performed since Greater Plumbing was fired from performing any further work in March 2011.

45. Rankin purposefully engaged in a sham legal process when he filed the lien on Plaintiffs property and unreasonably and fraudulently placed cloud on title to the Grey Trust Home.

46. Not only should Rankin be forced to release the lien, but should punished for his criminal action by the district attorney as well as be forced to pay three times the damages that Plaintiff has sustained as a result of said sham legal process as pursuant to 12 OS §1141 as well as attorney’s fees and costs associated with prosecution of this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant judgment against the Defendants on all of Plaintiffs claims and grant judgment for all actual, compensatory and non-pecuniary damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/lOO Dollars ($10,000.00); award punitive damages against the Defendants which shall punish them and serve as a deterrent for similar conduct in the firture, plus award Plaintiff her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this action and any other relief the Court deems to be fair, just, and equitable.


Defendant Greater Plumbing, Inc. and Doug Rankin appeared and answered as follows:

1. Greater Plumbing, Inc., admits the following paragraphs, however as to all paragraphs regarding Rankin, he does not admit he is the propr party and all constructions of admission where the paragraph says “defendants” øther thin the corporation owned by Rankm, admissions are only as to personal knowledge Iid not an admission of capacity to be sued

• Paragraphs: 1-9

• Paragraph 10 is admitted partially and denied partially in that Greater Plumbing was contracted to do not only the “rough in” but also the “top out” and the “finish”. The balance of the paragraph strict proof is demanded.

• Paragraph 12 is admitted partially and denied partially in that the “red tags” upon investigation, were not applicable to the Defendants but were related to the HVAC installer. The balance of the paragraph strict proof is demanded.

• Paragraph 13 is admitted partially and denied partially in that Defendants were not advised as to the reason for the termination, and as stated the “red tags” were not related to Defendants Greater Plumbing or Rankin. The balance of the paragraph strict proof is demanded.

• Paragraph 14 is admitted only partially and denied partially in that a check was tendered to Greater Plumbing but it was not for all work performed thru the termination. The balance of the paragraph strict proof is demanded.

• Paragraph 15 is admitted.

• Paragraph 16 is admitted partially and denied partially in that Rankin was approached to release his lien but Rankin would not agree.

2. Greater Plumbing, Inc., denies the following paragraphs, however as to all paragraphs regarding Rankin, he does not deny he is the proper party and all constructions of denial where the paragraph says “defendants” or other than the corporation owned by Rankin, denials are only as to personal knowledge and not an admission of capacity to be sued:

• Paragraph 17 is denied in its entirety in that it is not possible to correct work by Greater Plumbing that was done to standards and in competence and strict proof is demanded.

• Paragraph 18 is denied in its subparts as above and admitted in its subparts as above previously addressed.

• Paragraph 19 is denied in its entirety, as Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin deny they owe a “fiduciary” duty to Plaintiff, and only owed the contractual benefit as a subcontractor to perform work up to the standards of code and competent plumbing construction.

• Paragraph 20 is denied in its entirety as it pertains to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin.

• Paragraph 21 is denied in its entirety as it pertains to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin.

• Paragraph 23 is denied in its entirety as it pertains to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin.

• Paragraph 24 is denied in its subparts as above and admitted in its subparts as above previously addressed.

• Paragraph 25 is denied in its entirety and subparagraphs as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 26 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 27 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaitifl, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 28 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 29, is denied in its subparts as above and admitted in its subparts as above previously addressed.

• Regarding Paragraph 30, Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin, are without sufficient information with personal knowledge of all details of the dealings of Plaintiff with Cole’s Construction and its operators, but does not dispute there was a contract, and believes there was.

• Paragraph 31 Defendants believe to be true and admit.

• Paragraph 32 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 33 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 34, is denied in its subparts as above and admitted in its subparts as above previously addressed.

• Paragraph 35, Defendants, Greater Plumbing and Rankin did act in good faith and dealt fairly on its contract, however, they were not in privity of contract with Plaintiffs and owed no express or implied duty to so deal, but had duty to perform work in a workman like manner.

• Paragraph 36 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin and demands strict proof. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its representations to Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 37 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin and demand strict proof. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its actions or representations toward Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 38, is denied in its subparts as above and admitted in its subparts as above previously addressed.

• Paragraph 39 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin and demand strict proof. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its actions or representations toward Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 40 is denied in its entirety as it relates to Defendants Greater Plumbing and Rankin and demand strict proof. As it relates to the actions of Cole’s Construction and its actions or representations toward Plaintiff, Greater Plumbing and Rankin are without enough personal knowledge to admit or deny.

• Paragraph 41, is denied in its subparts as above and admitted in its subparts as above previously addressed.

• Paragraph 42 Defendants believe to be true and admit.

• Paragraph 43 Defendants admit only that lien was properly filed and denies that it the lien was regarding that for which Greater Plumbing or Rankin were afready paid.

• Paragraph 44 is denied in its entirety and strict proof demanded.

• Paragraph 45 is denied in its entirety and strict proof demanded.

• Paragraph 46 is denied in its entirety and strict proof demanded.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Greater Plumbing and Ranking, pray that Plaintiff not taking anything by way of its Petition and rather, grant these Defendants, attorney fees and costs, and any and all other remedy this Court deems just and proper.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. No privity of contract

2. Proper lien

3. Offset

4. Unjust Enrichment

5. Denial of loss

6. Corporate Veil as to Rankin

7. Improper party as to Rankin

8. No capacity to sue Rankin

9. Not responsible for Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc., or said defendants actions

COUNTER-CLAIM

COMES NOW, Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc., and for its causes by way of counterclaim against the Plaintiff, Paula Sue Miesowitz, As Trustee Of The Gray Family Revocable Trust Dated 5/12/93, hereby states the following:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION LIEN FORECLOSURE

1. Arising out this same subject and occurrence as propounded by the Plaintiff, Defendant asserts his cause of action to foreclose the lien on the property which is the subject matter of this suit, for the amount of $6,408.86. Said lien was attached to the original Petition and is incorporated here by reference.

2. Said lien was filed in due course on proper time and is now sued upon in proper time having provided all requisite notices.

3. Said lien was the result of having performed work on the property in workman like manner and according to code and standard and as according to the contract and the course of dealing.

4. Such remaining amount was left unpaid, as well as other another amount which was not asserted by lien. However, Defendants plead that the workman and material man’s lien is due and owing in the amount of $6,408.86 and no payment for this lien amount has been tendered as was obligated.

5. Defendants therefore counterclaim in lien equity that this court should foreclose the property causing payment to be rendered.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- UNJUST ENRICHMENT

6. Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc., and Rankin incorporate paragraphs 1-5 by way of reference.

7. That in addition to the amount of $6,408.86, which such benefit has been conferred on the owner of the property or Plaintiff, Paula Sue Miesowitz, As Trustee Of The Gray Family Revocable Trust Dated 5/12/93, the additional amount of $1,500.00 was omitted from the lien for work done in hooking up the water from the City to the home unit.

8. That Plaintiff or owner of the house in question, has in the amount of $7,908.86, been unjustly conferred a benefit and been unjustly enriched wherefore the owner, having known of the benefit conferred and absorbed such benefit, and been enriched thereby, should be required to pay Greater Plumbing, Inc. said amount as it is owed and due.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant prays this Court grant the following:

A. For the claims for relief set forth above, Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc., seeks judgment against Plaintiff for foreclosure of the property to satisfy the lien debt in the amount of $6,408.86 and for unjust enrichment in the amount of $7,908.86, which is alternative to the lien.

B. For the costs of this action, interest as provided by law, and for all other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Attorney Lien Claimed Jury Trial Demanded

GREATER PLUMBING, INC.’S CROSS-CLAIM

AGAINST CROSS DEFENDANT, COLE’S QUALITY CONSTRUCTION

COMES NOW, Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc., and for its cause by way of cross- claim against the Defendant, Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc., hereby states the following:

1. That on or about February 10, 2011, Greater Plumbing, Inc., entered into contract as a sub-contractor for Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc., (“Cole’s”) to perform $ 17,400.00 in plumbing rough-in, top-out and finish work installation for the house that was being constructed that is the on-going subject of this lawsuit.

2. That on June 13, 2011, Cole’s terminated the contract with Greater Plumbing, Inc., leaving unpaid balances in the amount of $7,908.86.

3. That said termination was a breach of contract, in bad faith, and Cole’s failed to deal fairly, thusly breaching express and implied covenants and duties to deal in good faith and fairly.

4. That Greater Plumbing, properly performed its obligations under the contract bid and faithfully install plumbing and performed labor for which it was not paid.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc., prays this Court grant the following:

A. For the claims for relief set forth above, Defendant, Greater Plumbing, Inc., seeks judgment against Cross-Defendant, Coles Quality Construction, Inc., for breach of contract in the amount of $7,908.86. Attorney Lien Claimed Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants Myron Cole II and Holly Cole appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition.

2. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition.

3 Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contaiued in paragraph 3 of the Petition

4 Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole admit the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition with the correction that the correct name of the company is cle’s Quality Construction, Inc.

5. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit that Myron and Holly Cole are the owners of Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc. However, they deny that Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole may be sued in their individual capacity.

6. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition.

7. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition.

8. As to paragraph 8 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

9. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Petitioner with the correction that the proper name of the company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc.

10. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition with the correction that the proper name of the company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc.

11. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition with the correction that the proper name of the company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc.

12. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition.

13. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition with the correction that the proper name of the company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc. Although Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc’s termination of its contract with Greater Plumbing, Inc., took place after receipt of the “red tags”, they were not the only reason for the termination.

14. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition.

15. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Petition.

16. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Flolly Cole, are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition.

17. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof. Additionally, the correct name of the Defendant company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc.

18. As to paragraph 18 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

19. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

20. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof. Additionally, the correct name of the Defendant company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc.

21. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

22. Defendants, Myron Cole, TI and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

23. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

24. As to paragraph 24 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

25. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

26. Defendants, Myron Cole, TI and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

27. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

28. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

29. As to paragraph 29 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

30. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Petition with the correction that the correct name of the company is Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc.

31. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

32. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

33. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

34. As to paragraph 34 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

35. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Petition.

36. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

37. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

38. As to paragraph 38 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

39. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

40. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, deny the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

41. As to paragraph 41 in the Petition, individual assertions admitted or denied as stated above.

42. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Petition with the correction that the correct name of the company is Cole’s Quality Company, Inc.

43. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Petition.

44. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit that the contract between Cole’s Quality Construction, Inc and Greater Plumbing, Inc. was terminated but deny that the date was in March, 2011.

45. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Petition

46. Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, admit the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Petition

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, assert the following affirmative defenses:

47. No privity of contract

48. Lack of capacity to be sued relating to Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole.

49. Improper party as to Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole.

50. Corporate veil as to Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole.

51. Novation.

52. Accord and satisfaction.

53. Waiver.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, Myron Cole, II and Holly Cole, request that the Court deny the relief sought in Plaintiffs Petition, grant an award of attorney’s fees and costs against Plaintiff, and for such other relief as is just and equitable.

Attorney Lien Claimed

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice as to Myron Cole II and Myron Cole

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: