Date: 12-13-2013

Case Style: Copeland Construction, Inc. v. Lawrence White

Case Number: CJ-2013-4705

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrew R. Chilson

Defendant's Attorney: Pro Se

Description: Copeland Construction, Inc. sued Lawrence White on a breach of contract theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff is an Oklahoma corporation.

2. Defendant, an individual, is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

3. The claims asserted in this action all arose or occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

4. Jurisdiction over the parties and venue in this Court is proper.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Plaintiff provides high-quality, professional construction services to business and individual customers.

6. On or about September 2, 2012, Defendant executed a written agreement (the “Contract”) with Plaintiff relating to the replacement of his roof and other general repairs to his home.

7. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum of $14,704.71 in exchange for roof replacement and other repairs.

8. Throughout the term of the Contract, Plaintiff issued invoices to Defendant.

9. Plaintiff completed the roof replacement and all repairs per the Contract.

10. Defendant failed to honor the terms of the Contract by reffising and failing to timely pay Plaintiff for the goods and services provided.

11. Demand has been made upon Defendants for payment of the outstanding balance of $14,056.90 due to Plaintiff.

12. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the amount of $14,056.90, plus the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees.

CAUSE OF ACTION I: BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in paragraphs one (1) through twelve (12), above.

13. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Defendant agreed to timely pay all obligations to Plaintiff.

14. Defendant failed to honor the terms of the Contract by reftising and failing to timely pay Plaintiff for the goods and services provided.

15. Plaintiff has met its obligations per the Contract by completing all work.

16. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the Contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $14,056.90.

17. Plaintiff is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with collection of this debt pursuant to
Okia. Stat. tit. 12, § 936.

COUNT II: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in paragraphs one (1) through seventeen (17), above.

18. Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of failing to timely pay for the goods and services provided pursuant to the Contract.

19. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant for unjust enrichment in an amount in excess of excess of $14,056.90, plus costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jackson Supply Company requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $14,056.90, post-judgment interest accruing at the statutory rate from date of judgment, until paid, and award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Okia. Stat, tit, 12, § 936, along with the ongoing costs of enforcing judgment obtained in this matter, and such further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

Defendant, Lawrence White, appeared and answered as follows:

I. I agree completely with everything stated in the following numbered paragraphs of the petition: 1, 2, 3. 4. 6. 7. & 13

II. I disagree with all or part of the following numbered paragraphs of the petition: ,
9,10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. & 19

DEFENSE

1. On or about September 2, 2012, Defendant executed a written agreement (the “Contract”) with Plaintiff relating to the replacement of his roof and other general repairs to his home.

2. The Plaintiff has never issued an invoice regarding the completed work to the Defendant

3. The Plaintiff failed to complete the roofmg portion of the contract as follows:

A. Identified defective shingles have not replaced

B. Damaged roof vent caps were not replaced

C. Guttering around the house has not installed

4. The Defendant is not refusing to pay as evident by his excellent credit references. His
desire is only to resolve the identified projects that have not been repaired or replaced.

5. The delay in payment to Copeland for the contracted work is based upon three factor:

A. GAF, the shingle manufacturer, took a long time in resolving the shingle issue

B. The lack of urgency on Copeland’s part to finish the project and issue an invoice in a timely manner

C. Failure on Copeland’s part communicate with the Defendant

6. Copeland has failed to honor the contract

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

I request that the Petition be dismissed and that I be awarded relief for the pain and suffering that I have endured during this ordeal, which was created by Copeland Construction.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: