Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P initially instituted the present action to foreclose a mechanic's and materialman's lien for labor and materials furnished in remodeling Ds' home. The trial court found that although there were instances of defective construction, the contract had been substantially performed, and the court entered judgment in favor of P. Upon appeal, this Court reversed the lower court, holding that P was not entitled to foreclose his lien because the construction contract had not been performed in a workmanlike manner, and there was no substantial performance. A mechanic's lien may not be enforced where the contract under which the parties are bound is not substantially performed. Ds were entitled to damages resulting from P's breach and directed the lower court to assess the damages and render judgment accordingly. The district court held that P was entitled to recover $5,090.86 for labor and materials, less $1,997.51 that Ds had paid on the contract. The trial court then awarded Ds damages for the cost of repairing defective construction in the amount of $2,494.50 allowed as a set-off from D's award and entered judgment in favor of P for $598.85 with interest and costs. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.