Breach of contract; Contract interpretation; Contract terms; Condition precedent; Waiver; Attorney fees under the contract; Motion for reconsideration

The court concluded the trial court did not err in awarding plaintiff-Cherry Oak “$52,321 in damages for nonpayment of landscaping work, $64,524 in attorney fees, $8,872 in supplemental attorney fees, $33,953 in interest, and $1,502 in costs.” But it remanded for a determination as to the reasonableness of appellate attorney fees. Defendant-OPV Partners contended “that the trial court erred by construing the initial paragraph” of the master contract “as incorporating the entirety of Attachment A.” The court held that “because the language of the master contract incorporates the entirety of Attachment A into the contract, the trial court did not err by granting Cherry Oak Landscaping partial summary disposition, nor did [it] abuse its discretion by denying OPV Partners’ motion for reconsideration.” OPV Partners next argued “that the trial court should have granted its motion for summary disposition because Cherry Oak Landscaping failed to submit with its invoices sworn statements and lien waivers. Because that condition precedent to payment was not satisfied, OPV Partners contends that it did not breach the contract by failing to pay Cherry Oak Landscaping for the services that it performed under the contract.” But the court determined that summary disposition would not have been appropriate “given that one party averred that the required documentation was not provided and the other party averred that it had been provided,” creating a genuine issue of material fact. OPV Partners next argued “that the trial court erred by finding at trial that it had waived the requirement that Cherry Oak Landscaping submit lien waivers and sworn statements with its invoices.” The court concluded that the “trial court did not clearly err by finding that the communications, coupled with OPV Partners’ silence as to the need for lien waivers and sworn statements, constituted a waiver of the provisions regarding lien waivers and sworn statements.” The court further determined that the award of attorney fees in this case was “not unreasonable simply because the damages for the breach of contract were less than the amount of attorney fees awarded.” In addition, the court noted that the attorney-fees provision was “clearly broad and does not exclude the award of appellate attorney fees.” Affirmed but remanded.