Opinion ID: 2382247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Extra Work

Text: Regarding other claims, Green asserts that the waiver of lien releases signed by Solis bar Solis' recovery on his claim for extra-contractual work, and that the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise. While we agree with the court of appeals' judgment on this issue, we disagree with its reasoning. The jury awarded Solis $44,018 for extra-contractual work performed by Solis on the Snyder and Dayton Projects. However, in return for periodic payments, Solis executed waiver of lien releases every 30 days agreeing to: [R]elease Contractor from all claims arising out of or by reason of work performed and materials furnished under said subject Subcontract and under the Contractor's prime contract with the Owner. The question presented is whether the global language of the releases terminated Solis' recovery for his extra work. Under the Subcontracts, Solis was required to execute the waivers of liens in order to obtain his periodic payments. On the other hand, Section 53.101 of the Property Code requires an owner to retain ten percent of each periodic payment made to the general contractor, and the Subcontracts permitted Green to retain from the periodic payments the same percentage as retained by the owner. See TEX. PROP.CODE § 53.101. Thus, the Subcontracts contemplated that Solis would execute the waiver of lien releases before receiving one hundred percent of his compensation due. Additionally, Green approved change orders for the extra work on the Snyder and Dayton Projects several months after Solis had signed the last waiver of lien release. The relevant provision of the Subcontracts provides: Subcontractor agrees to make any changes that the Contractor may require, without nullifying this Subcontract Agreement, at a reasonable addition to, or deduction from, the contract price. No alterations or changes shall be made, however, except under the written order of the Contractor. The very terms of the Subcontract contemplate written change orders for additional compensation for extra work. These change orders explicitly revised the contract amount due, and thus, modified the Subcontracts. The waivers of liens were executed months before these written modifications were made, and therefore, the releases cannot apply to these subsequent revisions. The waiver of lien releases do not bar Solis' recovery for the extra work. The court of appeals reasoned that the waiver of lien releases were unenforceable because Green had relinquished its procedural rights under the subcontracts by breaching the subcontracts. 932 S.W.2d at 46. The court of appeals' reasoning is valid only if Green's obligations under the subcontract and Solis' obligation to execute the waiver of lien releases were dependent covenants. See Hanks v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 644 S.W.2d 707, 708 (Tex.1982) (A prerequisite to the remedy of excuse of performance is that covenants in a contract must be mutually dependent promises.). However, we need not address the issue of whether these covenants were dependent or independent because of our holding that the waiver of lien releases do not bar Solis' recovery for extra work.