Wildwood Builders v. Lee CA1/3

── Wildwood Builders v. Lee CA1/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 Wildwood Builders v. Lee CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILDWOOD BUILDERS, INC, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, A175009 v. SHIUH-KAI LEE, as Trustee, etc., (Alameda County Defendant, Cross-complainant Super. Ct. No. RG21097358) and Appellant. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Shiuh-Kai Lee, in his capacity as trustee of the Lee-Wei Family Trust, breached his contract with Wildwood Builders, Inc. (Wildwood) by refusing to pay a portion of its fees after completion of repairs to his apartment building. He appeals, advancing various theories of error. Finding none persuasive, we affirm. BACKGROUND In April 2021, Wildwood sued Lee alleging breach of contract after he refused to pay sums due under their agreement. In June, he countersued and alleged Wildwood breached by failing to fully perform. In his cross- complaint, he alleged that Wildwood was, at “[a]ll relevant times,” a “licensed contractor.” 1  In February 2020, Wildwood and Lee entered into an agreement under which Wildwood would repair balconies at Lee’s apartment complex in exchange for approximately $175,000. The agreement incorporated “Plans by SDS Structural Engineering,” “phase II,” “[s]heet” “S10.0.” “Sheet S10.0 include[d] a plan sheet,” with “an arrow pointing to the bottom of a deck section” and a note “that reads ‘(N) 5/8” Dens Glass Type-X Sheet Rock’ ” with “ ‘Synthetic Finish Over Lay.’ ” (Some capitalization omitted.) The agreement also explicitly excluded “labor or materials” for work including “stucco,” “deck coating,” “paint,” or any “material except shop primed steel beams.” (Italics omitted.) The agreement provided that “final contract payment is due and payable upon ‘Substantial Completion’ (not Final Completion) of all work under contract.” It defined substantial completion “as being the point at which the building/work of improvement is suitable for its intended use, or the issuance of an occupancy consent, or final building department approval from the city or county building department, whichever occurs first; for work included in this contract” (capitalization omitted). In November 2020, the city building inspector gave its “final ok pending completion of stucco.” Wildwood did not apply a finish to the underside of the balconies, and Lee withheld payment. In 2024, the trial court held a six-day trial. Lee argued that the plans incorporated into the agreement required Wildwood to install a synthetic finish rather than stucco, and parol evidence was not necessary to interpret the contract. Wildwood, for its part, argued that the agreement’s exclusion clause included the synthetic finish because that is what contractors “typically consider ‘stucco.’ ” At trial, the court heard parol evidence concerning the meaning of stucco. 2  After the trial, the trial court concluded Wildwood fulfilled its obligations, and Lee breached the agreement. It found that, “[d]espite the dispute over the application of the synthetic finish,” Wildwood had substantially completed the project. It also found stucco is an “external coating system” including “a finish, plaster layer, a layer of self-furring lath, and layers of wate