LEMPA CONSTRUCTION LLC v. TAYLOR RICHEY

Let’s cut straight to the drama: a roofing company is suing another roofing company—yes, another roofing company—for $39,894.35 because one guy didn’t pay the other guy for fixing a restaurant roof. This isn’t The Apprentice: Roofing Edition, but honestly, it should be. We’ve got subcontractors, general contractors, Missouri strip malls, and a paper trail thicker than a contractor’s excuse for why the invoice is still unpaid. Welcome to Crazy Civil Court, where the stakes are low, the grudges are high, and someone definitely forgot to get it in writing (or did, and then ignored it).

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Lempa Construction LLC, also known as Lempa Roofing and Construction, LLC—because nothing says “trust me with your roof” like three business names in one. They’re an Oklahoma-based outfit that apparently does the kind of work you don’t notice until it rains and your ceiling turns into a waterfall. On the other side? Taylor Richey, an individual doing business as Richey Roofing Construction, which sounds like the kind of name you’d pick after losing a bet. He’s also based in Oklahoma, though the job in question was across the border in Branson, Missouri—the land of bald eagles, live music, and apparently, unpaid roofing bills. These two weren’t strangers; they had a working relationship, the kind where one guy (Richey) acts as the general contractor—the big boss of the job—and the other (Lempa) is the subcontractor, the skilled specialist brought in to do the actual work. It’s a classic construction industry setup: Richey gets the gig, Lempa does the heavy lifting, and somewhere between the shingles and the handshake, the money trail went off the rails.

Now, let’s roll through what actually happened. On October 2, 2025—yes, this case is from the future, but we’re rolling with it—Lempa and Richey struck a deal. The job? A restaurant at 2421 W 76 Country Boulevard in Branson, Missouri. That address, by the way, is in the heart of Branson’s tourist strip, home to pancake houses, souvenir shops, and more neon signs than you can shake a rake at. The project was no DIY shed rebuild—it was a full-blown commercial roofing job, and Lempa was on the hook to handle the construction-related services. The contract? A cool $72,000. Not chump change, but not unheard of for a commercial job. Lempa allegedly did the work—fully performed their obligations, the filing says, which is legalese for “we showed up, we worked, we didn’t ghost.” But here’s the kicker: Richey only paid part of what was owed. As of the filing date in January 2026, $39,894.35 was still dangling out there like a loose gutter in a thunderstorm. Lempa claims they’ve been asking—since at least November 13, 2025—for Richey to pay up. And Richey? He either didn’t answer, didn’t care, or thought “no news is good news” applied to invoices. Either way, no payment. So Lempa did what any self-respecting business does when someone ghosts them after a $72K job: they lawyered up and filed a lawsuit.

Which brings us to why they’re in court. Lempa is making two main claims, and we’re going to translate them from “lawyer speak” to “human speak.” First: Breach of Contract. That’s a fancy way of saying, “We had a deal, I held up my end, you didn’t, so now I want my money.” The contract was for $72,000, Lempa did the work, and Richey didn’t pay the full amount. That’s a textbook breach. The second claim? Unjust Enrichment. This one’s juicier. It means, “You got something valuable—like a brand-new roof on a restaurant—without paying for it, and now you’re benefiting at my expense. That’s not fair, and the court should make you give it back.” In this case, “give it back” means “pay up,” because you can’t exactly un-roof a building. So Lempa is arguing: not only did Richey break the contract, but he’s also walking around with a construction project he didn’t pay for, and that’s just not cool.

Now, what do they want? Lempa wants $39,894.35. That’s very specific—down to the penny—which makes us wonder if they included the cost of one extra box of nails or a single cup of coffee from a Branson gas station. But seriously, is that a lot? In roofing terms? It’s not nothing. For context, that’s enough to buy a decent used pickup truck, put a down payment on a house, or pay for a lot of shingles. For a $72,000 job, it’s more than half. So this isn’t a “forgot to Venmo $20” situation. This is a “you stiffed me on a down payment-sized chunk of cash” situation. And Lempa isn’t just after the principal—they want interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Which makes sense, because now they’ve had to hire a law firm—Crowe & Dunlevy, a big name in Oklahoma—to chase down a guy who probably thought he could just ghost a subcontractor like it was a bad Tinder date. Oh, and they didn’t ask for a jury trial, which tells us they’d rather let a judge handle this than turn it into a courtroom circus. Pity. We could’ve used the drama.

So what’s our take? Look, we’ve seen our share of petty lawsuits—landlords suing tenants for missing lightbulbs, neighbors dueling over lawn gnomes—but this one takes the cake because it’s contractors suing contractors. These are the people who build the buildings where lawsuits happen. They should know better. They should have contracts, payment schedules, lien waivers, the whole nine yards. And yet, here we are. The most absurd part? That Richey thought he could get away with this. Not paying a fellow roofer? That’s like a chef stealing another chef’s secret sauce—there’s a code! In construction, your reputation is everything. Word gets around. Next time Richey needs a plumber, an electrician, or even a dumpster rental, someone’s going to say, “Wait, isn’t that the guy who didn’t pay Lempa?” And suddenly, no one wants to work with him. He’s not just dodging a bill—he’s torching his professional relationships. And for what? Forty grand? That’s not even enough to buy a custom-built shed with AC and mood lighting.

We’re rooting for Lempa, sure, but not just because they’re the plaintiff. We’re rooting for the principle: if you hire someone to do work, you pay them. It’s not complicated. And if Richey has a reason for not paying—subpar work, delays, whatever—he should’ve raised it months ago, not waited until a lawsuit hit his mailbox. Silence isn’t a defense. Ghosting isn’t a strategy. And doing business as “Richey Roofing Construction” while stiffing another roofing company? That’s not just bad business. That’s poetic justice waiting to happen.

So here’s hoping the judge rules fast, the check clears, and Lempa can go back to fixing roofs instead of chasing down contractors who clearly need a lesson in basic decency. And Taylor Richey? Maybe he’ll learn that in construction, just like in life, if you don’t lay a solid foundation, everything eventually collapses.