Cockia Turner v Melvin Quinones and Quality Building & Maintenance LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Home renovation under a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 203(k) loan with US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) consultant oversight; dispute over final draw payment and availability of unjust enrichment where a written contract governs.
After a bench trial, the court awarded defendant the full final draw and $12,500 on unjust enrichment, and awarded plaintiff $8,500 for unreimbursed materials.
The $12,500 unjust enrichment award to defendant.
The unjust enrichment claim duplicated the contract claim and was unsupported by competent proof; the invoice was illegible and lacked detail, and defendant did not specify extra-contractual work performed.
Background
Plaintiff bought a foreclosed, uninhabitable house using a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 203(k) loan, which required oversight by a US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) consultant and prohibited occupancy until completion of specified repairs. Defendant MQ Quality Building & Maintenance LLC, through its member Melvin Quinones, was approved to perform the work and entered into a contract providing for five draw payments, a final walkthrough with a punch list, a 10% retainage for deficiencies, and a one-year warranty procedure for correction of defective work. Four draws were paid without issue. For the final draw, defendant sought the contractually required joint walkthrough, but plaintiff instead conducted the walkthrough with the HUD consultant alone. After plaintiff spent $1,098.50 on corrections, the HUD consultant approved the work and the lender issued a two-party check for the final draw to plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff refused to release payment and did not cash the check, then sued for defective work, unpaid additional work, reimbursement for materials, and repair costs; defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. At trial, the action against Quinones individually was withdrawn; the corporate name was clarified as MQ Quality Building & Maintenance LLC.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Sullivan County) found defendant entitled to the entire final draw and awarded $12,500 on unjust enrichment, while awarding plaintiff $8,500 for materials she purchased.
Appellate Division Reversal
The court independently reviewed the record, deferred to trial credibility findings, and held defendant was entitled to the final draw because plaintiff failed to adhere to the contract’s final inspection, punch list, and warranty procedures, and she unilaterally hired third parties before invoking the warranty. It modified the judgment to delete the $12,500 unjust enrichment award because the claim duplicated the contract claim and was not proven with specific, detailed evidence (the invoice was illegible and lacked a labor/materials breakdown). As modified (reducing damages to defendant by $12,500), the judgment was affirmed.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that clear construction contract payment and warranty procedures in FHA 203(k) projects will be enforced; a party who bypasses contractual remediation steps risks forfeiting defect-related damages. Also underscores that unjust enrichment is unavailable where a valid contract governs and cannot be proven with vague or undocumented invoices.
Where a written construction contract governs payment, inspections, and warranties, courts will enforce those terms; unjust enrichment cannot replace a contract claim and requires specific, competent proof.