Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 JULY 2019

Avoiding The Tennessee Retainage Requirements

Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Contributor
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright is a full-service law firm with more than 550 lawyers, serving clients across the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Dickinson Wright PLLC

In Vic Davis Construction, Inc. v. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc., the Tennessee Court of Appeals approved a contractor's use of closeout costs to "holdback" 5% of the contract price without complying with the...

United StatesReal Estate and Construction

In Vic Davis Construction, Inc. v. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc., the Tennessee Court of Appeals approved a contractor’s use of closeout costs to “holdback” 5% of the contract price without complying with the retainage requirements of the Prompt Pay Act.  

The subcontractor alleged that the general contractor withheld a percentage of payment in a line item that was designated as “Turn-over, As-Builts, Final Cleanup, Demobilize.” The subcontractor noted not only that the amount of this line item ($108,835.00) equaled five percent (5%) of the total contract price but also that $108,835.00 was not representative of the cost of “Turn-over, As-Builts, Final Cleanup, Demobilize” as it related to the subcontractor’s scope of work on the project. The subcontractor claimed that such work would cost less than $20,000.00. What is more, at trial, the subcontractor’s project manager testified that the general contractor referred to these amounts as “holdback” in

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from