Opinion ID: 1493887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Home Construction Contract Act Claim

Text: [¶ 17] The trial court did not state reasons for granting Runnells's motion for partial summary judgment on the HCCA claim. Runnells asserts that Quinn's property is not subject to the protections of the HCCA because it contains, in addition to Quinn's living area, two rental units, and the rental units are a commercial or business purpose, excluding the building from the protections of the HCCA because it is not a residence. [¶ 18] Residence is defined in the HCCA as a dwelling with 3 or fewer living units and garages, if any. Buildings used for commercial or business purposes are not subject to this chapter. 10 M.R.S. § 1486(5) (2005). The limitation in the HCCA to three or fewer living units would appear to contemplate that at least some of those living units might be rental units. This is confirmed in other provisions of the HCCA that anticipate that agreements might be between either contractors and homeowners or contractors and lessees. See 10 M.R.S. § 1487 (2005). Thus, residences of homeowners that include one or two rental units would qualify as a residence under the plain meaning of the term residence as defined in the HCCA. [¶ 19] Section 1487 of the HCCA requires that any home construction contracts for more than $3000 (1) be in writing; (2) specify a contract price, 10 M.R.S. § 1487(4) (2005); (3) establish a limitation on down payments to no more than one-third of the total contract price, id. § 1487(5) (2005); and (4) require that any changes in the contract price as a result of changes in specifications or changes in requested work be subject to a written change order, id. § 1487(9) (2005). [¶ 20] Summary judgment is precluded if, when the facts are reviewed, there remain disputes as to material facts relating to the viability of any claim. See Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24, ¶ 6, 816 A.2d 63, 65. On the available record, there appears to be a dispute as to material fact as to whether the down payment received by Runnells on the second written contract exceeded the one-third of contract price limitation in section 1487(5), and there appears no dispute that there were oral agreements between Runnells and Quinn that resulted in a significant increase in the cost of the work to be done above the $75,470 figure agreed in the last written contract. [¶ 21] By proving his quantum meruit claim, Runnells also, effectively, proved violation of the HCCA. 10 M.R.S. §§ 1487(9), 1488 (2005). However, proof of violation of the HCCA does not exempt a homeowner from responsibility to pay for work proved to have been completed pursuant to the homeowner's request and under circumstances justifying recovery in quantum meruit. The remedies specified in the HCCA are not so broad. Pursuant to 10 M.R.S. § 1490(1) (2005), a violation of the HCCA is viewed as prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, of violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 M.R.S. §§ 205-A to 214 (2005). In addition, for each violation of the Act found by the court, the court may find a civil violation and order a forfeiture of not less than $100, nor more than $1000, 10 M.R.S. § 1490(2) (2005). [¶ 22] Accordingly, the remedy for violation of the HCCA must be adjudicated independently of any determinations relating to the homeowner's responsibility to pay the contractor for work requested by the homeowner and done properly, pursuant to the homeowner's request, by the contractor. Therefore, while the matter must be remanded to the trial court for determination of the HCCA claim and evaluation of any remedies that may be appropriate, including an award of costs, this remand does not require a reopening and reconsideration of the matters decided by the jury. The judgments based on the jury verdicts will be affirmed. The matter will be remanded to the Superior Court for consideration of the HCCA claim. The entry is: The portion of the trial court's judgment dismissing the Home Construction Contract Act claim is vacated. Remanded to the Superior Court for consideration of the Home Construction Contract Act claim. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.