Court Opinion

ID: 9603503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:06:51.043295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:00.801244
License: Public Domain

HOWARD, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The appellant is in a “Catch 22” situation. The majority has decided it is not entitled to proceed against the appellees on the theory of unjust enrichment because appellee has a right to withhold the final payment until the general contractor has “satisfied all indebtedness.” The general contractor has not “satisfied all indebtedness” nor any indebtedness, as far as the record shows, since the suit was instituted. There is no evidence that the general contractor will ever satisfy all indebtedness. A question of fact exists as to whether the general contractor will ever satisfy the requirements of its contract with the owner. Thus, summary judgment is precluded. If the evidence in the trial court is that the general contractor will never be able to pay, then Costanzo v. Stewart, 9 Ariz.App. 430, 453 P.2d 526 (1969), applies because the general contractor has not been paid. I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.