Case Title: KEITH L. DOBSON & ASPEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. V. PORTRAIT HOMES, INC.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
KEITH L. DOBSON & ASPEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. V. PORTRAIT HOMES, INC.2005 WY 95117 P.3d 1200Case Number: 04-226Decided: 08/17/2005
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
KEITH L. DOBSON andASPEN

CONSTRUCTION 
COMPANY, INC.,

 
 
Appellants

(Defendants/Counterclaimants),

 
 
v.

 
 
PORTRAIT 
HOMES, INC.,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 

 
 

Representing Appellants:

 
 
            
Peter K. Michael, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing Appellee:

 
 
            
Brian S. Bailey and Henry F. Bailey, Jr. of Bailey, Stock & Harmon, 
P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and BROOKS, D.J.

 
 
VOIGT, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court; HILL, 
Chief Justice, filed a dissenting opinion, with which BROOKS, District Judge, 
joined.

 
 
 
 
  
            
VOIGT, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In a controversy 
between an owner/contractor and a claimed materialman, the district court 
granted judgment to the owner/contractor on the ground that the claimed 
materialman did not have a valid lien, and that the owner/contractor had paid 
the disputed amount under economic duress.  We reverse.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      The parties have 
identified numerous issues.  We find the dispositive issues to be as 
follows:

 
 
            
1.         Did 
the parties reach an enforceable compromise and settlement?

 
 
            
2.         Did 
the owner/contractor participate in the purported compromise and settlement as 
the result of economic duress?

 
 
RELEVANT STATUTES

 
 
[¶3]      This case revolves 
around the statutes creating a materialman's lien.  The relevant 
portions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 29-1-301, et seq., and 29-2-101, et seq. (LexisNexis 
2005) provide as follows:

 
 
§ 29-1-310.    Bond to 
satisfy lien; terms of bond; filing and effect thereof; action upon bond.

 
 
            
(a)       Any lien created 
pursuant to Title 29 filed against any property, personalty or realty is 
satisfied if the owner of the property, a contractor or subcontractor has filed 
a corporate surety bond, letter of credit, cash or cash equivalent of 
established value approved by the district court in the county where the lien 
was filed in an amount equal to one and one-half (1½) times the amount of the 
lien.

 
 
            
. . .

 
 
            
(e)       Upon the filing 
of the bond, the lien against the property shall be forthwith discharged and 
released in full, and the security described in subsection (a) of this section 
shall be substituted.  
The clerk of court shall issue a notice of satisfaction of lien which the 
owner, contractor or subcontractor may file in the office of the county clerk 
where the lien was filed which shall show that the lien has been satisfied.

 
 
            
(f)         A 
lien claimant whose lien has been satisfied by the substitution of the security 
described in subsection (a) of this section may bring an action upon the bond or 
undertaking.  
The action shall be commenced within the time allowed for the 
commencement of an action to foreclose the lien.

 
 

§ 29-1-311.    False or frivolous liens; damages; 
penalties. 

 
 
            
. . .

 
 
            
(b)       Any person whose 
real or personal property is subject to a recorded claim of lien who believes . 
. . that the person claiming the lien knew at the time of filing the lien was 
groundless . . . may petition the district court of the county in which the 
claim of lien has been recorded for the relief provided in this subsection.  . . .  Upon the filing of 
the petition the following shall apply:

 
 
(i)         The 
court may enter its order, which may be granted ex parte, directing the person 
claiming the lien to appear before the court at a time no earlier than six (6) 
nor later than fifteen (15) days following the date of service of the petition 
and order on the person claiming the lien, and show cause, if any, why the 
relief provided in this subsection should not be granted;

 
 
. . .

 
 
(iv)       If, following a 
hearing on the matter the court determines that . . . the person claiming the 
lien knew at the time of filing the lien was groundless . . . the court shall 
issue an order striking and releasing the claim of lien and awarding damages of 
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or actual damages, whichever is greater, costs 
and reasonable attorney's fees to the petitioner to be paid by the person 
claiming the lien[.]

 
 

§ 29-2-101.    Persons entitled to liens; extent 
of lien on realty; exceptions.

 
 
            
(a)       Except as 
provided in W.S. 29-2-111, every person performing any work on or furnishing any 
materials or plans for any building or any improvement upon land shall have for 
his work done or plans or materials furnished a lien upon the building or 
improvements, and upon the land of the owner on which they are situated to the 
extent of one (1) acre.  If the improvements cover more than one (1) 
acre the lien shall extend to all the additional land covered thereby.

 
 
            
(b)       To have a lien 
the work or materials shall be furnished under a contract.

 
 
§ 29-2-106.    When statement lien to be filed; 
rights of subcontractor not abridged by contract between owner and contractor; 
agreement to extend filing period.

 
 
            
(a)       Every contractor 
shall file his lien statement within one hundred twenty (120) days and every 
other person shall file within ninety (90) days:

 
 
(i)         
After the last day when work was performed or materials furnished under 
contract; or

 
 
(ii)        From the 
date the work was substantially completed or substantial completion of the 
contract to furnish materials, whichever is earlier; or

 
 
(iii)       With respect to 
an employee or subcontractor, after the last day he performed work at the 
direction of his employer or contractor.

 
 
§ 29-2-107.    Notice of intention to file 
lien.

 
 
            
Before filing a lien pursuant to this chapter every person shall give ten 
(10) days notice to the owner or his agent in writing of any claim against a 
building or an improvement or for materials furnished stating the amount of any 
claim and from whom it is due.

 
 
§ 29-2-111.    Notice of right to claim a lien 
required; limitations.

 
 

            
(a)       Any 
subcontractor or materialman who may claim a lien under this title shall give 
notice of his right to claim a lien to the prime contractor.  Failure to give 
notice to a prime contractor who has complied with subsections (f) and (g) of 
this section waives the subcontractor or materialman's right to a lien.

 
 
            
(b)       The notice of 
the right to claim a lien shall be given no later than sixty (60) days after the 
date on which services or materials are first furnished.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Portrait Homes, Inc. 
(Portrait Homes), as owner and contractor in a residential construction project, 
contracted with Paul Vinluan (Vinluan) for Vinluan to provide all labor and 
materials necessary for the drywall portion of the construction.  As a result of 
personal friendships, Vinluan had an arrangement with Aspen Construction 
Company, Inc. (Aspen Construction), to use Aspen Construction's account at 
Building Specialties, Inc. (B.S.I.), to order materials for Vinluan's various 
projects.

 
 
[¶5]      In the fall of 2002, 
Vinluan purchased materials from B.S.I., using Aspen Construction's account, and 
installed those materials in Portrait Homes' project.  All such materials 
were either picked up by Vinluan or were delivered to the building site by 
B.S.I.  When the 
project was completed, Portrait Homes paid Vinluan in full, but Vinluan did not 
pay Aspen Construction for the materials that had been charged to its account at 
B.S.I.1  When Aspen Construction sought payment from Vinluan 
on the B.S.I. invoices, Vinluan told Aspen Construction, untruthfully, that he 
had not been paid by Portrait Homes.  Consequently, Aspen Construction sent to 
Portrait Homes, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-2-111, a notice of right to 
file a lien.  
Upon receipt of that notice, Portrait Homes confirmed with B.S.I. that 
the materials had been invoiced to Aspen Construction, but, nevertheless, 
contacted Aspen Construction to inform the latter that a lien filing would 
result in a lawsuit for damages for any loss of sale caused thereby.  Aspen Construction 
responded by sending to Portrait Homes, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-2-107, 
a notice of intent to file a lien.

 
 
[¶6]      What followed was a 
stalemate, as the parties and their attorneys exchanged letters contending for 
their respective positions.  In the meantime, three things were 
happening:  (1) 
Portrait Homes was being advised by its real estate broker not to allow a lien 
to be filed against the property because even a satisfied lien might raise 
concerns for potential buyers; (2) Portrait Homes entered into a sale contract 
that required it to furnish a title commitment showing marketable title; and (3) 
Aspen Construction's lien filing deadline was approaching.  Finally, on the last 
day that Aspen Construction could file its lien statement, Portrait Homes 
delivered full payment of the contested amount to Aspen Construction, along with 
a letter containing the following language:

 
 
Enclosed with this letter is a check from Portrait Homes, 
Inc. in the amount of $3,645.18 for payment of drywall materials which you 
maintain were provided for the residence currently being constructed by Portrait 
Homes . . ..  As 
you know, we maintain that payment for these materials was made in full to our 
original drywall contractor, [Vinluan].

 
 
This payment is being made under duress and in no way is an 
admission by Portrait Homes that your claim is valid.  We are making this 
payment solely to prevent a lien from being filed against the property so as to 
cloud the title and possibly prevent a sale of the property.

 
 
[¶7]      In return for the 
payment, Aspen Construction prepared and immediately delivered a lien waiver to 
Portrait Homes.  
No lien statement was ever filed, and the home was sold without 
incident.  
Several months later, Portrait Homes sued Aspen Construction in the 
circuit court, alleging in an amended complaint causes of action for damage to 
business reputation, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.  The case was 
transferred to the district court because the circuit court's jurisdictional 
limit was exceeded by Aspen Construction's counterclaims.  The case was tried 
to the court, after which judgment, with detailed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, was entered in favor of Portrait Homes.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 
 

[¶8]      We recently reiterated 
the standard of review of a bench trial in which the court made express findings 
of fact and reached express conclusions of law, and we see no need to repeat 
that standard at length.  See Jacoby v. Jacoby, 2004 WY 140, ¶¶ 6-7, 100 P.3d 852, 854-55 (Wyo. 
2004).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶9]      Aspen Construction 
contends that its delivery of a lien waiver in exchange for payment, on the last 
day a lien statement could have been filed, constituted a compromise and 
settlement of the dispute.  This Court has on several occasions addressed 
the theory of "compromise and settlement."  In Parsley v. Wyoming Automotive Co., 395 P.2d 291, 295 
(Wyo. 1964), we described the general rule of compromise and settlement 
as being "that the settlement of a bona fide dispute or a doubtful or 
unliquidated claim, if made fairly and in good faith, is a sufficient 
consideration for a compromise based thereon."  We have defined a compromise as "an agreement 
between two or more persons who, to avoid a lawsuit, amicably settle their 
differences on such terms as they can agree on.'"  Peters Grazing Ass'n v. Legerski, 544 P.2d 449, 456 n.3 
(Wyo. 1975) (quoting 15A C.J.S. Compromise and 
Settlement § 1 at 170).  
A settlement agreement is a contract and, therefore, subject to the same 
legal principles that apply to any contract.  In re Estate of Maycock, 2001 WY 103, ¶ 10, 33 P.3d 1114, 1117 (Wyo. 
2001); Matter of Estate of McCormick, 926 P.2d 360, 362 
(Wyo. 1996).  
The elements are the same as the elements of any contract:  offer, acceptance, 
and consideration, and establishment of the existence of these elements leads 
courts to conclude that mutual assent has occurred.  Matter of Estate of McCormick, 926 P.2d  at 362.  
A compromise and settlement agreement is, also like other contracts, 
subject to construction as a matter of law.  Ludvik v. James S. Jackson Co., Inc., 635 P.2d 1135, 1143 
(Wyo. 1981).

 
 
            
A contract made in settlement of claims is valid even if the claims 
settled are of doubtful worth.  . . .  This means that this court will not look 
behind a settlement agreement to see who would have prevailed in a dispute out 
of which the settlement agreement arises.  If the settlement agreement itself meets 
contractual requirements, it will be enforced.

 
 

Kinnison v. Kinnison, 627 P.2d 594, 596 (Wyo. 1981).

 
 
[¶10]   In addition to these general principles, 
we will note certain aspects of the law of compromise and settlement that have 
particular application to this case.

 
 
In order for a claim to be considered disputed, there must 
be a genuine controversy or difference in position between the parties[.]  . . .  If, at the time of 
an agreement, there is no dispute between the parties and neither party believes 
that there is any uncertainty as to the rights and obligations between them, the 
agreement is not a compromise.

 
 

15A Am.Jur.2d Compromise and Settlement § 24 at 743-44 (2000) 
(footnote omitted).  
"Since the basic function of a compromise is to resolve doubt or 
uncertainty through amicable means rather than through litigation, a disputed 
claim must involve doubt or uncertainty in order to constitute a sufficient 
foundation for a compromise."  Id., § 25 at 744 (footnote 
omitted).

 
 
The validity of a compromise is not impaired by the fact 
that the compromise resolved issues differently than a court might have; if the 
validity of a compromise depended upon which party actually was right, the very 
object of a compromise which the law favorsavoiding the necessity of having a 
court resolve uncertaintieswould be defeated.  Thus, a claim need not be valid or well 
founded to support a compromise.  Accordingly, compromises often are upheld 
without regard to the validity of the claims or rights which were 
compromised.

 
 

Id., § 27 at 745-46 (footnotes omitted).  Where there is a 
good-faith dispute involving a claim, and the party asserting the claim 
relinquishes it as part of a compromise and settlement, such a concession is 
sufficient consideration for the promise or act of the other party.  Id., § 30 at 747.

 
 
[¶11]   The judgment entered by the district 
court noted that Aspen Construction asserted compromise and settlement as a 
defense, and noted that Aspen Construction had the burden of proving that 
defense by a preponderance of the evidence.  Thereafter, the district court made no 
specific findings and reached no specific conclusions in regard to compromise 
and settlement.  
In addressing economic duress, however, the district court stated that 
"[d]uress is a legal basis for a party to seek rescission of a contract and 
restitution of its consideration."  That statement makes sense only if the 
district court had concluded that the exchange of payment for a lien waiver 
constituted a contract under the theory of compromise and settlement.

 
 
[¶12]   We agree with the district court.  The facts clearly 
show the offer, acceptance, and consideration necessary to create a 
contract.  It is 
from the confluence of these factors, rather than from the subjective intent of 
the parties, that courts find mutual assent:

 
 
In Wyoming, we examine the 
objective manifestations of the parties' contractual intent to determine whether 
a contract was formed.  
McDonald v. 
Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 820 P.2d 986, 990 (Wyo.1991).  "Under the objective theory' of contract 
formation, contractual obligation is imposed not on the basis of the subjective 
intent of the parties, but rather upon the outward manifestations of a party's 
assent sufficient to create reasonable reliance by the other party."  Id.  A party's 
intention will be held to be what a reasonable person in the other party's shoes 
would conclude his manifestations to mean.  Shrum v. Zeltwanger, 559 P.2d 1384, 1387 
(Wyo.1977).

 
 

Givens v. Fowler, 984 P.2d 1092, 1095 (Wyo. 1999).  
A contract can be formed where one party lacks subjective intent, 
but nevertheless proceeds as if there were a contract.  McDonald v. Mobil Coal 
Producing, Inc., 820 P.2d 986, 990 (Wyo. 1991).  
"The conduct of a party may manifest assent even though he does not in 
fact assent.  In 
such cases a resulting contract may be voidable because of fraud, duress, 
mistake, or other invalidating cause.'"  Id. (quoting Restatement 
(Second) of Contracts § 19 (1979)).

 
 
[¶13]   Portrait Homes contends that no contract 
was formed in this case because there was no mutual assent, inasmuch as it did 
not voluntarily pay Aspen Construction and intended to sue to get its money 
back.  That 
subjective intent does not defeat the objective manifestation of a contract in 
the form of that payment, reasonably relied upon by Aspen Construction.  Furthermore, if 
Portrait Homes did not intend to reach an enforceable agreement, it should not 
have accepted in consideration thereof the lien waiver provided in exchange for 
payment.

 
 

[¶14]   Portrait Homes' second argument that a 
contract was not formed alleges failure of consideration:  because Aspen 
Construction's lien was invalid, it gave up nothing in exchange for the 
payment.  This 
argument is defeated by reference to the law cited above, especially Kinnison, 627 P.2d  
at 596.  Whether or not the lien was valid as a matter 
of law, Aspen Construction's waiver of the lien was sufficient as consideration 
for the compromise and settlement.  Parsley, 395 P.2d  at 295; 15A Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 27 at 
745-46.  
The facts are sufficient to establish that Aspen Construction had a 
colorable claim to a lien, and did not act in bad faith in pursuing it.

 
 
[¶15]   The conclusion that the parties' dispute 
was resolved by compromise and settlement leads to the next inquiry, that being 
whether the agreement should be set aside because it resulted from "economic 
duress."  We 
have described that theory as follows:

 
 
            
Kendrick bears the burden of proving that she agreed under duress.  Goodson v. Smith, 69 
Wyo. 439, 457-58, 243 P.2d 163, 171 
(Wyo.1952).  
"[D]uress exists whenever a person is induced, by the unlawful act of 
another, to perform some act under circumstances which deprive him of the 
exercise of free will."  In re TR, 777 P.2d 1106, 1111 (Wyo.1989).  Kendrick's argument that financial issues 
constituted duress is a claim of economic duress.

 
 
"Whether particular facts are sufficient to constitute 
economic duress is a question of law.  Whether these circumstances exist is a 
question of fact.  
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, when applying Wyoming law to a duress defense to 
avoid the enforcement of an agreement, said

 
 
            
The Wyoming test for duress is not inconsistent with the test for 
economic duress developed in those states which have expressly recognized 
economic duress as grounds for avoiding a settlement agreement.'

 
 
[Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated 
Securities, Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1242 (10th Cir.1990)]  This Court, however, has not directly had the 
opportunity to adopt what is commonly known as the economic duress' 
doctrine.  We 
take this opportunity now to do so and embrace the three-prong test employed by 
many courts to determine whether economic duress exists.  Under this test, 
economic duress occurs when (1) a party involuntarily accepts the terms of 
another, (2) the circumstances permit no other alternative, and (3) such 
circumstances are the result of coercive acts of the other party.  Economic duress does 
not exist, however, unless a person has been the victim of a wrongful act and 
has no reasonable alternative but to agree with the terms of another or be faced 
with a serious financial hardship.  What constitutes a coercive act or reasonable 
alternative is a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each 
case."

 
 

Kendrick v. Barker, 2001 WY 2, ¶ 24, 15 P.3d 734, 741 (Wyo. 2001) (quoting Blubaugh v. Turner, 842 P.2d 1072, 1074-75 
(Wyo. 1992)).

 
 
[¶16]   With this test in mind, the district 
court threw out the compromise and settlement agreement on the ground that 
Portrait Homes was the victim of economic duress.  First, the district court found that Portrait 
Homes had only three options:  pay the amount demanded and avoid filing of 
the lien statement, "bond around" the immediate problem via Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
29-1-310, or place a sufficient amount into escrow and pursue subsequent 
litigation.  The 
district court then found that all of these alternatives were unreasonable under 
the circumstances.  
Finally, the district court clearly placed the "blame" for the economic 
duress upon Aspen Construction for pursuing a lien when it did not fit the 
definition of a materialman under the statute.

 
 
[¶17]   We reverse the district court because 
Portrait Homes has failed to prove any but the first element of the doctrine of 
economic duress.  
There is little question that Portrait Homes involuntarily, even 
begrudgingly, paid Aspen Construction the amount demanded in exchange for the 
lien waiver.  
However, given the relatively small amount in controversy, that being 
$3,645.18, and Portrait Homes' admission both that it knew of the bonding 
statute and that it had the funds available to pursue that remedy, the facts 
simply do not support a contention that the circumstances permitted no 
reasonable alternative.  This is especially true because Portrait Homes 
also could have turned to the alternative expedited judicial process provided in 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311.2  There may be a situation where the ratio of 
the disputed amount to the expected sale proceeds is such that it would be 
entirely unreasonable to risk payment under similar circumstances.  But here, where 
$3,645.18 was at issue, and the sale price under the pending sale agreement was 
$380,000.00, that risk imbalance does not exist.  Were we to say that, under the facts of the 
instant case, the statutory alternatives were unreasonable, that would be 
tantamount to saying that they can never be reasonable and the statutes are a 
nullity.

 
 
[¶18]   We are further convinced that Portrait 
Homes' economic duress theory must fail because it did not prove that Aspen 
Construction's conduct was wrongful, or unlawful, as contemplated under that 
doctrine.  
Compromise and settlement could not exist as a theory if the settlement 
agreement could always be undone by proving that one party or the other would 
have lost its factual or legal argument in litigation.  Pursuing a statutory 
lien in good faith is not a wrongful or unlawful act, even if it eventually 
turns out that the lien is invalid for one reason or another.  The evidence does 
not support a conclusion that Aspen Construction knew its lien was invalid, 
especially since it has not been conclusively established that it was, indeed, 
invalid.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶19]   The parties reached a compromise and 
settlement of their dispute when Portrait Homes paid the full amount demanded in 
return for Aspen Construction's immediate delivery of a lien waiver.  Portrait Homes did 
not participate in that compromise and settlement as a result of economic 
duress, inasmuch as there were reasonable alternatives available to it, and 
Aspen Construction's conduct was not wrongful or unlawful.

 
 
[¶20]   We reverse and remand for entry of a 
judgment consistent herewith.

  
HILL, Chief Justice, dissenting, with whom BROOKS, District 
Judge, joins.

 
 
[¶21]   I respectfully dissent because I do not 
believe the majority opinion gives adequate credit to the district court's role 
as the fact finder in this "simple," yet profoundly troubling case, nor does it 
fully credit the findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the district 
court.

 
 
[¶22]   I think it is important that we set out 
the applicable standard of review, at least briefly:

 
 
The trial court made express findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  
The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review 
afforded a jury verdict.  Hopper v. All Pet 
Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo.1993).  While the findings are presumptively correct, 
the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the 
record.  Id. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial 
judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does not entail 
weighing disputed evidence.  Id. Findings of 
fact will not be set aside unless the findings are clearly erroneous.  Id. A finding is clearly 
erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on 
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 
has been committed.  
Id. We 
review a district court's conclusions of law de novo on appeal.  Id.

 
 

Springer v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Wyoming, 944 P.2d 1173, 1175-76 (Wyo.1997).

 
 

Roussalis v. Apollo Electric Company, 979 P.2d 493, 495 (Wyo. 1999); and see Jacoby v. Jacoby, 2004 WY 140, ¶¶6-7, 100 P.3d 852, ¶¶6-7 (Wyo. 
2004); and Lebsack v. Town of Torrington, 698 P.2d 1141, 1146 (Wyo. 1985) (Under W.R.C.P. 52(a) findings need only be sufficient to 
indicate the basis or steps taken for the decision upon the contested matters; 
they need not be set forth in elaborate detail but need only be clear, specific 
and complete in concise language informing the appellate court of the underlying 
basis for the trial court's decision.); 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. 
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d 
§§2579 and 2580, esp. pp. 550-51 (1995 and Supp. 2004) (appellate court reads 
trial court's memorandum/opinion liberally to find within it the required 
findings).

 
 
[¶23]   It is also important that we set out the 
pivotal conclusions reached by the district court:

 
 
            
12.  An action for unjust enrichment (money had and received) 
is equitable in nature and lies upon proof that the Defendant has received money 
of the Plaintiff which, in equity and good conscience, it ought not to 
retain.  Landeis v. Nelson, 808 P.2d 216 (Wyo. 1991).  In this case, 
Plaintiff paid twice for the drywall materials delivered by B.S.I. and installed 
by Vinluan on its construction project at 5908 Foxhill 
Road; it paid Paul Vinluan (d.b.a. A.O.I.) upon 
completion of the drywall portion of the project and then paid Defendant Aspen 
when Defendant asserted invalid lien rights.  Because Defendant Aspen does not fit the 
statutory definition of a materialman, he received money from Plaintiff to which 
he was not entitled.  
Engle v. First National Bank of Chugwater, 
supra.  
Defendant received the money from the Plaintiff and was under notice that 
if Plaintiff pursued a remedy, Defendant would be required to repay the 
proceeds.  
Plaintiff has met its burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment.  Defendant Aspen has been unjustly enriched at 
Plaintiff's expense and should return the proceeds to Plaintiff.

            
13.  Duress is a legal basis for a party to seek rescission of 
a contract and restitution of its consideration.  Restatement of the Law of Restitution § 70 
(A.L.I. 1937).  
In order to prove economic duress by a preponderance of the evidence, 
Portrait Homes had to prove each of the following essential elements:  (1) a party 
involuntarily accepted the terms of another; (2) circumstances permitted no 
other alternative; and (3) the circumstances were the result of the coercive 
acts of the other party.  Kendrick v. Barker, 
15 P.3d 734, 741 (Wyo. 
2001).  
"Economic duress does not exist, however, unless a person has been victim 
of a wrongful act and has no reasonable alternative but to agree with the terms 
of another or be faced with serious financial hardship.  Id.  In the Court's view, 
these elements have been established.  The evidence was uncontroverted that 
Plaintiff's payment to Defendant was not voluntary.  Defendant's conduct 
was "coercive," i.e. threatening to file an invalid lien unless money was 
paid.  And 
finally, Plaintiff had no reasonable alternative but to pay the money 
demanded.  
"Bonding around" the lien, as Defendant suggests Plaintiff should have 
done, while it may have satisfied the lien, would not have prevented the lien 
from being filed.  
According to Larry Sutherland, a licensed broker with 27 years of 
experience in the real estate industry, the lien would have appeared on the 
title commitment.  
It was reasonable for Plaintiff to rely on Mr. Sutherland's advice and 
recommendations concerning the potential adverse impact of the threatened lien, 
which was the possible loss of the sale of the property, which was a $390,000.00 
sale.  
Defendants introduced no testimony to contradict Mr. Sutherland's 
opinions.  The 
potential loss of a sale of this magnitude, especially with an outstanding 
construction loan, posed a risk of serious financial harm that Plaintiff could 
not reasonably ignore.

            
14.  Defendant has failed to sustain its burden of proof 
regarding its asserted affirmative defenses.

 
 

[¶24]   It is apparent that the majority opinion 
chooses to disregard the district court's findings as to unjust enrichment 
entirely.  It is 
my conviction that they serve as an independent basis upon which to affirm the 
district court's judgment.  See generally, Boyce v. Freeman, 2002 WY 
20, ¶¶12-15, 39 P.3d 1062, ¶12-15 (Wyo. 
2002); and Landeis v. Nelson, 808 P.2d 216, 217-19 (Wyo. 1991).

 
 

[¶25]   Beyond that, the district court 
concluded, as a second independent basis for granting relief to Portrait Homes, 
that the transaction between the parties could be avoided by application of the 
theory of "economic duress."  By simply turning the numbers at stake here 
upside down, and by avoiding a comprehensive discussion of the concept of 
"economic duress," the majority at once dismisses the applicability of "economic 
duress" and fully credits many of Aspen Construction's affirmative defenses 
(which the trial court found had not been proved).  After a detailed 
examination of the concept of "economic duress," I am convinced that the 
district court correctly applied that law to the circumstances of this 
case.  
See generally, 28 Williston on Contracts, Chapter 71 (Duress and Undue Influence), §§ 71:171:33 at 423-548, §§ 71:4045 at 
566-587, and see especially § 71:28 at 539-40, ("Analogous to cases of the 
improper detention of goods are cases where the assertion of a lien upon real 
property has been used as a means of coercion, although no lien existed, or if 
it existed, it should have been discharged; in such instances, the improper 
action generally constitutes duress.") (4th ed. 2003).  Moreover, as the 
Williston treatise develops in great detail, the application of the concept of 
"economic duress" has steadily broadened in its application, particularly to 
provide equitable relief in cases involving unethical business practices.

 
 

[¶26]   Here, the district court focused on the 
value of the property that was to be held hostage by the lien ($390,000.00), as 
opposed to Aspen's small but spurious lien ($3,615.18), whereas the majority 
simply reverses that equation, i.e., in order to protect the $390,000.00 sale 
all Portrait Homes had to do was cough up a mere $3,615.18.  I think the district 
court's emphasis is more apt, but certainly it is not clearly erroneous because 
it accurately reflects the testimony of the owners of Portrait Homes and their 
real estate advisor, while at the same time giving little credibility to 
Dobson's self-serving testimony.  In addition, the district court did make 
reference to the protestations of the victims of the duress, the subjective 
perceptions of the victims of the duress, the pressures of time and the overall 
circumstances of this case, the element of potential injury to the business and 
livelihood of the owners of Portrait Homes, and to the reputation of that 
business.  These 
are all legitimate factors to be weighed in applying the concept of economic 
duress.  
Id., §§ 71:14 ("No alternative under circumstances"); 71:18 
("Protest as evidence of duress or coercion"); 71:40 ("Injury to business or 
livelihood").

 
 
[¶27]   As noted above, the district court is 
not required to set out in detail in its findings all of the evidentiary and 
ultimate facts that may be gleaned from the documentary evidence and transcripts 
(although, of course, the more complete the details, the better).  In my estimation, 
the district court adequately set out both the evidentiary facts that it looked 
to in reaching a conclusion as to ultimate facts, and it applied those facts 
correctly to the applicable law.  Paul Vinluan had a contract with Portrait 
Homes to provide drywall materials and to install them in a residence owned by 
Portrait Homes.  
Aspen Construction had no contractual relationship, nor any other 
relationship, with Portrait Homes.  As a stranger to Portrait Homes, and as a 
volunteer, Aspen Construction paid for the materials that were eventually 
incorporated into the home owned and built by Portrait Homes.3  Aspen Construction 
did so, in part as a guarantor of Paul Vinluan's credit,4 in part to gain 
an advantage over its competitors in the home construction business (Aspen 
Construction got "first call" on Vinluan's time for its construction projects as 
part of its agreement with Vinluan to guarantee his creditworthiness), and in 
part because it furthered personal relationships between Keith Dobson, the owner 
of Aspen Construction, and his associates.

 
 
[¶28]   It is unmistakable from this testimony 
that neither Aspen Construction nor Dobson was a "materialman" as contemplated 
by the governing Wyoming statutes, indeed, Aspen Construction's argument in this 
case would expand the category of persons who qualify as materialmen to an 
absurd sort of infinity (i.e., to any person who might have provided credit of 
any sort to a materialman).  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-201(a)(vi) 
(LexisNexis 2003).  
Nonetheless, Aspen Construction intentionally and maliciously threatened 
to file a materialman's lien against the residence owned by Portrait Homes, in 
order to collect money owed to it by Vinluan (whether the money was technically 
owed to Dobson or to Aspen Construction is not entirely clear, but the facts 
extant suggest that Vinluan owed the money at issue in this case to Aspen 
Construction.  
However, failing that, Dobson owed it to Aspen Construction, unless, of 
course, Dobson and Aspen Construction are, in fact, one and the same person).5

 
 
[¶29]   The majority opinion describes what 
ensued as a stalemate, but I am convinced that the facts support a much darker 
conclusion, i.e., that Dobson used a spurious claim to a materialman's lien in 
order to extort money from Portrait Homes that was, in reality, owed to Dobson 
solely by Vinluan.  
Indeed, the record is clear that Dobson did so without making any 
credible effort to collect the money from Vinluan.  In addition, Dobson 
did not threaten the filing of the lien until the last possible date for its 
filing, and after knowing for over three months that Vinluan had not paid him 
according to the terms of the oral agreement between them.  Dobson was able to 
employ this ruse to great effect, because he knew he had Portrait Homes over the 
proverbial barrel.  
Portrait Homes had completed construction of the residence and was about 
to sell it (Portrait Homes had to make a decision about how to avoid/mitigate 
its potential losses from this situation over a period of time that was quite 
brief, given the complexity of the dilemma Dobson presented for Portrait 
Homes).  A lien 
against the property could have had the effect of frustrating the sale of the 
$390,000.00 property, even though Dobson needed to be paid only the paltry sum 
of $3,645.18 [Vol. III, 78-80].  The record is also clear that Portrait Homes 
could readily pay that amount, if Dobson could prove, in an appropriate forum, 
that he was entitled to such payment from Portrait Homes.  The trouble with 
that scenario is that Dobson clearly could not collect from Portrait Homes 
because he could not prove such a debt.  However, by filing the lien, and actually by 
merely threatening to file such a lien, and creating the necessarily resulting 
legal entanglements that accompany the filing of such a lien, Dobson could 
coerce Portrait Homes to pay him, even though it owed him nothing.  In addition, the 
majority elevates form over substance by concluding that Portrait Homes had 
reasonable alternatives other than paying Dobson in order to avert the filing of 
a lien.  The 
record reveals that Portrait Homes stood to lose the sale of a $390,000.00 home, 
possibly its good credit, and likely its reputation as a sound business 
operation, if it had not done so within the very limited time strictures imposed 
by Dobson's late filed lien.

 
 
[¶30]   For these reasons, I would affirm the 
judgment of the district court in all respects.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

  1The amount was 
$3,645.18.

  2It is unclear 
what escrow procedure is contemplated in the district court's list of 
alternatives.

  
3A local building supplies company actually sold 
the materials that form the basis of Aspen Construction's claims in this case to 
Vinluan.  As 
contemplated by the statute, that company was the materialman in this case.  A representative of 
that company provided uncontradicted testimony that the materials used in the 
construction of the home were paid for and it had no basis for a materialman's 
lien against Portrait Homes.  He also made clear that all materials that 
leave that business are paid for before they leave the premises ("That's how 
we're able to stay in business.").

 
 
  
4In this regard, see 53 
Am.Jur.2d Mechanics' Liens § 97 at 160-61 (1996) 
("Statutes that permit a lien for materials furnished usually apply only to a 
furnishing for building purposes, and do not include a furnishing for general or 
unknown purposes, or an ordinary sale in the usual course of trade or on a 
general open account, or a sale without any reference as to what will be done 
with the material sold.").

 
 

  
5At trial, Dobson needed to be reminded of the 
distinction between his corporation (Aspen) and himself.