Sudan Drilling, Inc. v. Anacker – 2009 MT 14
The Anackers entered into a verbal contract with Sudan to drill a well. Sudan began drilling the well where Anacker’s subcontractor had prepared a flat pad for the equipment. After drilling was partially complete, Anacker noticed the well was too close to the neighbor’s drain field. Sudan was notified and directed to abandon the first well and drill a second, which he did.
Sudan filed a complaint to foreclose on a construction lien for the amount of drilling the first well: $3,970. After depositions, the District Court granted summary judgment for Anacker based on two grounds: 1) failure by Sudan to complete the first well defeated his lien; and 2) Sudan breached the contract by not drilling the well in a workmanlike manner.
Because the parties had entered a contract to drill a well. A well was completed, the second well, and thus the contract work was substantially performed. As such, Justice Nelson ruled that the district court’s first rational was unfounded.
Regarding the second issue, some deposition testimony supported the assertion that Sudan drilled in the wrong location, while some indicated that the location of the first well was Anacker’s mistake. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the abandonment of the first well was a change order or a breach, rendering summary judgment improper.
Justice Cotter wrote a concurring opinion stating she agreed that the decision was in keeping with SCOMONT’s precedents on construction lien disputes, but wrote to express her belief that cases such as this “confound the purpose underlying the construction lien statutes.” Sudan, ¶ 18.
