Justice Eugene D. Faughnan

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendants to install twenty replacement windows in their home with a ten-thousand dollar balance due on completion. Defendants were unsatisfied with work performed and plaintiff returned to perform punch-list items that defendants were still unsatisfied With and thus, withheld the remaining balance. Plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien and sued–the case proceeded to a non-jury trial over four years later. The court granted plaintiff additional discovery and ruled defendants failed to file a timely response for a contractor expert. It also permitted plaintiff to conduct their own inspection and modify its expert opinions based on same, while defendants were denied a chance to modify their expert opinions. The court found plaintiff's experts more credible, noting evidence revealed there was no compromise of the structure or performance of the windows. Thus, it disagreed with defendants that the windows must be removed and replaced with different ones. Yet, while the court found no structural defects, it did find workmanship was less than acceptable in many instances, noting ample evidence demonstrated where the trim did not properly fit. Hence, plaintiffs were awarded judgment in their favor with $1,300 deducted regarding wood trim and caulking.

Justice Eugene D. Faughnan