MJB Bixby Construction Co. Lawsuits

[pddadmin]

Bixby vs Rutherford

6. On August 4, 2009, the RUTHERFORDS stated in writing that they would make no
further payments under the contract until all work was completed, thereby repudiating the express terms
of the contract. On August 7,2009, the RUTHERFORDS were presented with an invoice for contract
work that was due by August 17,2009. On August 18,2009, the RUTHERFORDS were given a notice
of breach for non-payment and were given ten (10) days to cure as provided in their contract. Plaintiff
continued to work, notwithstanding the RUTHERFORDS' breach.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that in late August, the RUTHERFORDS contacted the
Sacramento County Building Department and insisted that a Stop Work Order be issued because a
retaining wall to be constructed in their backyard had not been permitted properly. A Stop Work Order
was issued on August 27,2009, citing, "need permits for grading and retaining wall", which prevented
and excused BKBY from performing any further work.
8. On September 3, 2009, Plaintiff terminated the contract with the RUTHERFORDS in

writing for non-payment.

4. That the interests and claims and the estates of all Defendants named herein, and each
13 of them, be determined to be of inferior priority to that of Plaintiff and subj ect to Plaintiffs lien. That

14 the Court further order that the Plaintiff, or any party to this action, may become a purchaser at sale;

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)

4

17. Cross-complainants refer to and incorporates as though
5
fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 16.
6
18. At or about the time of execution of the building
7
Contract for the addition and other miscellaneous work, BIXBY
8
intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented to RUTHERFORDS,

9

that he was willing to complete all of the addition and/or the
10
repairs for the agreed Contract price of $235,904.28.
11
RUTHERFORDS have since been informed that it is BIXBY's custom
12
and practice to agree on a Contract price and then during the
13
course of construction require owners to agree to significant and
14
multiple Change Orders in order to increase what he will make as
15
profit on each job. Said intent was misrepresented and/or
16
concealed from RUTHERFORDS at the time they agreed to the
17
Contract price and signed the Construction contract.
18
19. When BIXBY made the representations to RUTHERFORDS that
19
he could, and would, complete the Contract for the agreed-upon
20
amount, BIXBY knew that he would be generating Change Orders in
21
the future. BIXBY made the representations with the intent to
22
defraud and induce cross-complainants to enter into the Contract
23
for an agreed amount, knowing that said amount would be increased
24
by Change Orders. At the time RUTHERFORDS entered into the
25
Contract, they did not know the representations made by BIXBY
26

were false and believed they were true and acted in justifiable