Opinion ID: 2330440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Final Payment

Text: [¶ 12] Although Jackman's issue before us is generally whether summary judgment was appropriate, it is specific in clarifying each issue. First, Jackman argues that the district court erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact that the last payment from the Town to Jackman was final payment, as defined by the contract. [¶ 13] After a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the last payment from the Town to Jackman was indeed final payment as we will explain. Although it would be dispositive here if the check stated final payment, that does not mean a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether or not check no. 1050 was final payment. The record and timeline of events reveal sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. On April 3, 2009, the Town Engineer received Pay Request No. 3 from Jackman, as required by Article 14.07 of the contract. Pay Request No. 3 makes no reference to final payment, which the contract did not require. Notably, however, a corresponding Notice of Acceptance and Final Payment was published for three days in the Rawlins Daily Times in accordance with Wyoming law. The final publication indicated that the contractor would be paid the final payment and the full amount due him on May 26, 2009. [¶ 14] On May 26, 2009, the Mayor of Baggs executed Change Order No. 7, and signed Pay Request No. 3. Also, a Supplement to Pay Request No. 3 was executed, entitled Explanation for difference in payment from Contractor requested amount. On June 18, 2009, Jackman agreed to Change Order No. 7, and on June 30, 2009, check no. 1050 was endorsed and cashed by Jackman. [¶ 15] Jackman concedes that it submitted to the project engineer two written requests for extensions of time over the course of the project. The parties memorialized the need for a 208-day increase in contract time in Change Order No. 7, executed by the project engineer on April 7, 2009, the Town on May 26, 2009, and Jackman on June 18, 2009. No record exists showing that Jackman sought or the Town gave express written acknowledgement of an unsettled claim regarding liquidated damages. Although Jackman points this Court to the Town Council minutes, the Town's letter entitled Supplement to Pay Request No. 3, and even a written objection to the Town's assessment of liquidated damages prior to May 26, 2009, we cannot conclude any are sufficient under the clear terms of the contract to preserve Jackman's claim after it accepted final payment. We will address those points, but conclude here that no issue of material fact exists to show any other scenario than that final payment was submitted by the Town, and accepted and cashed by Jackman.