Can construction contractors recover for orally requested extra work? Uhrhahn Construction v. Hopkins Explained

Construction projects frequently involve changes and additions beyond the original contract scope. But what happens when a written construction contract requires all changes to be in writing, yet the parties proceed with oral modifications? The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this common scenario in Uhrhahn Construction v. Hopkins.

Background and Facts

Uhrhahn Construction entered into written proposals with the Hopkins family for partial construction of their house. Each proposal explicitly stated that “any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders.” Despite this provision, Hopkins regularly made oral requests for additional work, which Uhrhahn performed. Hopkins paid invoices for some of the extra work labeled as “change orders,” but a dispute arose over defective Durisol blocks that increased installation costs. When Hopkins refused to pay for the additional expenses, Uhrhahn filed a mechanic’s lien enforcement action.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether parties could create an implied-in-fact contract allowing oral modifications despite written change order requirements, and whether the mechanic’s lien enforcement action was timely filed under Utah Code section 38-1-11.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed that Hopkins waived the written change order requirement through his conduct. The elements for an implied-in-fact contract were satisfied: Hopkins repeatedly requested extra work orally, Uhrhahn expected compensation, and Hopkins knew Uhrhahn expected payment—evidenced by his payment of previous change order invoices. However, the court reversed the mechanic’s lien ruling because Uhrhahn failed to adequately brief the timeliness issue, and the record suggested the enforcement action was filed three days late.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that written change order provisions can be waived through consistent course of dealing. Property owners who regularly request oral changes and pay for extra work may be estopped from later claiming contract protection. For contractors, the decision emphasizes the critical importance of ensuring mechanic’s lien enforcement actions are filed within statutory deadlines and that trial counsel adequately brief timeliness issues on appeal.