ALLIED CAPITAL CORPORATION and ALLIED CAPITAL SBLC CORPORATION v. LARRY BUILTE CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED Third-Party

*The Honorable Ann Aldrich, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio,
sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0116n.06
Filed: November 19, 2004
No. 03-1081
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ALLIED CAPITAL CORPORATION and
ALLIED CAPITAL SBLC CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
HAWLEY PROPERTIES, L.L.C., doing
business as Silver Lake Car Wash; HOLLY
C. HAWLEY; DEBAEKE PROPERTIES,
L.L.C., doing business as Sunset Lake
Properties, doing business as Lee S.
Debaeke; CONEX,
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
LARRY BUILTE CONSTRUCTION,
INCORPORATED
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: SUTTON and COOK, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, Senior District Judge *
PER CURIAM. Building contractor Larry Builte Construction, Inc. appeals from the “Bench
Trial Opinion and Order” of the district court resolving a payment dispute among Builte, the
construction projects’ owner-developers, and Builte’s excavation subcontractor. The district court

-- 1 of 2 --

2
rejected Builte’s breach-of-contract claim against the owner-developers, but awarded it damages
under a theory of unjust enrichment for its partial completion of the projects. Builte now challenges
both aspects of the decision, arguing that it deserves contract damages and that the court failed to
award it sufficient damages based on unjust enrichment when the court did not order the owner-
developers to pay enough to cover what Builte still owes its electrical and plumbing subcontractors.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having studied Builte’s brief (the lone brief filed
in this case), the joint appendix, and the applicable law, we are persuaded that the district court did
not clearly err in its factual findings and that it appropriately applied the law to those facts. The
issuance of a further detailed written opinion by this court would therefore be largely duplicative
and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the aspects of the district court’s judgment that
Builte appealed for the reasons set forth in that court’s opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --