GARY L. LAMB, SR. APPELLANT
LIGHT HEART, INC., d/b/a LIGHT HEART LAND HOLDINGS AND COLLEEN LONDON APPELLEES
FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE PAUL F. ISAACS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 09-CI-00282
FOR APPELLANT: Gayle E. Slaughter Lexington, Kentucky
FOR APPELLEE, LIGHT HEART, INC.: Charles M. Perkins
FOR APPELLEE, COLLEEN LONDON: Neil E. Duncliffe Georgetown,
BEFORE: DIXON, JOHNSON AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
Lamb, Sr. ("Lamb"), appeals from the February 7,
2017 order of the Scott Circuit Court, holding that no
contract exists between him and either Light Heart, Inc.
("Light Heart"), or Colleen London
("London"). After reviewing the record in
conjunction with the applicable legal authorities we AFFIRM.
January 20, 2006, Lamb and London signed a document, prepared
by Lamb, which purported to establish a cost-plus agreement
between the two concerning a remodeling of an old house. The
alleged agreement called for an hourly rate of pay for Lamb,
Walter G. Lamb, and additional general laborers, and states:
COST PLUS, AFTER WE COMPLETE THE WORK ASKED OF U.S. TO DO MR
GARY L. LAMB SR. OF LAMB'S ODDS AND ENDS WILL RECEIVE
10% OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE WORK DONE. THIS
INCLUDES LABOR AND MATERIALS. THIS COVERS BUILDING
PERMITS, TRIPS TO PICK UP MATERIALS[WITHIN GEORGETOWN AREA,
AND TIME SPENT CONCERNING THIS JOB.
only description in the agreement as to the work to be
performed is to "Remodle (sic) house and turn into art
center." The agreement specifies that time will be
turned in and paid on a weekly basis, but gives no additional
details concerning the project.
April 2006, Janna Gingras ("Gingras"), a principal
in Light Heart, came to visit with her daughter, London.
During this visit Gingras was introduced to Lamb. While it
was Light Heart that had been paying for Lamb's work each
week, Gingras and Light Heart were unaware that London had
signed an agreement with Lamb. Gingras let it be known to
Lamb that Light Heart actually owned the property which was
the subject of the renovations. In addition, Gingras learned
that London and Lamb had begun a romantic relationship in
addition to their work relationship.
Gingras returned in November 2006, she became aware of the
signed agreement between London and Lamb, objected to the
cost-plus provision, and ejected Lamb from the job. However,
after discussions with London, Gingras agreed that Lamb could
return to the job, but only under specified conditions.
Gingras stated in a letter to Lamb that she might be willing
to pay the 10% for some of the work done, but not on any
future work. The terms of work were rejected by Lamb.
Instead, Lamb prepared a new "agreement" for
London's signature specifying that he would conduct
business only with London. In addition, in the same document,
Lamb attempted to ratify the January 6, 2006 agreement. Both
London and Lamb signed the new "agreement" on
November 15, 2006, again without the knowledge or consent of
Light Heart or Gingras.
appears from the record that Lamb's work on the project
ended on or about January 2007. Sometime in early 2008,
London and Lamb broke off their relationship. While all
parties acknowledge that Lamb was paid for all labor,
material and supplies for the work he had done, Lamb began
making demands for the payment of the additional 10%, which
he defined as the cost-plus amount. After failing to receive
his requested final payment, on March 27, 2009, Lamb filed
suit against London and Light Heart, seeking $27, 000, the
10% profit he claimed due under the cost-plus provision. On
March 31, 2008, Lamb filed a Mechanics and Materialman's
Lien against the property. The matter was tried to the court
in a three-day bench trial. On February 7, 2017 the court
issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On
February 20, 2017, Lamb filed a Motion for Amendment of
Findings, Additional Findings on ...