Action Construction, Compro Tax square off in breach of contract trial

In early October, Action Construction had its motion for summary judgment denied by a local judge.

A month later, the company now has the opportunity to persuade 12 area residents that Compro Tax owes it hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid invoices.

As the Southeast Texas Record previously reported, in May 2008 Action Construction sued Compro Tax in order to collect more than $400,000 in unpaid invoices stemming from a pair of construction contracts.

On Monday, Nov. 1 jury selection began in the trial of Action Construction vs. Compro in Judge Donald Floyd's 172nd District Court.

Earlier this year, Action Construction had filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the evidence shows the company is entitled to the money.

On Oct. 5 Judge Floyd denied the motion, ruling that "there are genuine issues of material fact on substantially all of the facts" alleged by Action Construction.

Court papers show the companies entered into written contracts on May 9, 2006, and Aug. 2, 2006, to pour a concrete slab and erect a metal building on the Compro Tax property.

"Plaintiff was performing its contractual obligations and Defendant breached by failing to tender payment upon demand," Action Construction's suit states.

"Defendant's breach caused injury to Plaintiff including an overdue unpaid balance of $437,998.00, court costs and attorney's fees. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court."

Compro began changing the details of the plans after construction was well underway, court papers say.

In its suit, Action Construction claims it "tried to no avail to accommodate" Compro but the company refused to pay.

Compro argues that Action Construction failed to complete the job and comply with change orders, court papers say.

Compro is represented by Beaumont attorney Kerwin Stone of the Moore Landrey law firm.

Action Construction is represented by Beaumont attorney Brett Thomas of the Roebuck & Thomas law firm.

Case No. E181-706