Superior Wall and Paver, LLC v. Pamela E. Gacek and Mark R. Gacek

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/10/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090967 S u p e r i o r Wall and Paver, LLC v. Pamela E. Gacek and Mark R. Gacek Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-900300) BRYAN, J u d g e . Superior Wall and Paver, LLC ("Superior"), p l a i n t i f f / c o u n t e r d e f e n d a n t below, appeals favor of Pamela E. Gacek and Mark d e f e n d a n t s / c o u n t e r p l a i n t i f f s b e l o w . We the from a judgment i n R. affirm. Gacek, the 2090967 Procedural History On alleged ("the M a r c h 16, that 2007, i t and Superior the sued G a c e k s had the Gaceks. entered contract") f o r Superior to prepare into Superior a contract and i n s t a l l concrete p a v e r s a t t h e G a c e k s ' r e s i d e n c e , t h a t S u p e r i o r had its o b l i g a t i o n s under the paid Superior $14, 350 1 of c o n t r a c t , t h a t the the c o n t r a c t , and t h a t S u p e r i o r had of lien against the money performed not due i t was G a c e k s had the under recorded a v e r i f i e d Gaceks' property. Based statement on those a l l e g a t i o n s , S u p e r i o r c l a i m e d t h a t t h e G a c e k s had b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t by was due f a i l i n g t o pay under the contract, $14,350 f o r work and S u p e r i o r was Superior entitled that $14,350 o f t h e money i t the labor Superior had Gaceks owed Superior performed, and to the p e r f e c t i o n of i t s l i e n that against the Gaceks' p r o p e r t y . F i l i n g an a n s w e r and c o u n t e r c l a i m , t h e G a c e k s d e n i e d they were l i a b l e liable to them to Superior because, and the asserted that Superior Gaceks said, they S u p e r i o r more t h a n t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e , S u p e r i o r had had 2 was paid improperly The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t S u p e r i o r was $14,400 r a t h e r t h a n $14,350. 1 that seeking 2090967 attempted because to increase i t had the made an price error after beginning in calculating job amount the the of m a t e r i a l n e e d e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e j o b , S u p e r i o r had n o t p r o p e r l y installed design the pavers, agreed materials upon, Superior Superior a g r e e d upon, had had Superior not not had complied used not the quality the with of completed the work a g r e e d upon, and S u p e r i o r had n o t p e r f o r m e d i t s work i n a g o o d and workmanlike manner. s t a t e d claims of breach In their counterclaim, of c o n t r a c t , negligence, the wantonness, f r a u d u l e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and s l a n d e r o f t i t l e . the Gaceks' c o u n t e r c l a i m , Superior denied t o t h e G a c e k s . The G a c e k s s u b s e q u e n t l y assert an additional counterclaim caused by negligence. to summary seek Superior's Answering Superior denied On affirmative damages the t h a t i t was February judgment 23, "as f o r mental 2010, to the Gaceks' liable t h a t i t was and liable amended anguish amended and its counterclaim, Gaceks. moved Gaceks'] their allegedly contract to the Superior [the Answering amended t h e i r a n s w e r t o defense breaching Gaceks for a partial Counterclaims for W a n t o n n e s s , F r a u d u l e n t M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and S l a n d e r o f T i t l e and [ t h e G a c e k s ' ] c l a i m s f o r e m o t i o n a l a n d / o r m e n t a l damages." 3 2090967 On February 26, 2010, t h e p a r t i e s participated in m e d i a t i o n . As a r e s u l t o f t h e m e d i a t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d into a written a g r e e m e n t ("the m e d i a t i o n a g r e e m e n t " ) , provided, i n pertinent which part: "The p a r t i e s m e d i a t e d t h e ... a c t i o n on F e b r u a r y 26, 2010 ... a n d r e a c h e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s e t t l e m e n t agreement: "1. [Superior] w i l l execute a R e l e a s e and I n d e m n i t y Agreement i n f a v o r o f t h e [ G a c e k s ] i n e x c h a n g e f o r payment o f t h e sum o f $20,000 t o [ S u p e r i o r ] from [ t h e Gaceks]. One-half o f t h i s amount ($10,000) w i l l be p a i d b y t h e [ G a c e k s ] t o [ S u p e r i o r ] a f t e r t h e s c o p e o f work i s a g r e e d upon b y the p a r t i e s as d e s c r i b e d i n P a r a g r a p h 4 h e r e i n . A f t e r t h e work i s c o m p l e t e , [ S u p e r i o r ] w i l l p r o v i d e [the Gaceks'] counsel a C e r t i f i c a t e of Completion. Upon p r o v i d i n g t h i s C e r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l e t i o n , [ t h e Gaceks] w i l l pay [ S u p e r i o r ] t h e r e m a i n i n g o n e - h a l f ($10,000) w i t h i n s e v e n (7) d a y s . "2. [ S u p e r i o r ] a g r e e s t o t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n a n d f i l e a l l p a p e r s n e c e s s a r y t o remove a l l l i e n s t h a t have b e e n f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e [ G a c e k s ' ] home w i t h i n t e n (10) days o f t h e s c o p e o f work b e i n g a g r e e d upon b y t h e p a r t i e s as c o n t e m p l a t e d i n P a r a g r a p h 4. "3. I n e x c h a n g e f o r payment o f $6,000 t o [ t h e G a c e k s ] b y A m e r i c a n R e s o u r c e s I n s u r a n c e Company, t h e [ G a c e k s ] agree to dismiss with prejudice a l l c o u n t e r c l a i m s t h e y have f i l e d a g a i n s t [ S u p e r i o r ] , i n c l u d i n g a l l claims f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y , mental a n g u i s h a n d e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . T h i s payment must be made on t h e same d a t e as t h e i n i t i a l $10,000 payment i s made b y t h e [ G a c e k s ] t o [ S u p e r i o r ] . "4. [ S u p e r i o r ] a g r e e s 4 to repair a l l sunken o r 2090967 depressed areas in the subject driveway in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Sims S t o n e I n t e r l o c k i n g C o n c r e t e Paver Product Information Typical Installation S t a n d a r d s p r o v i d e d t o [ t h e G a c e k s ] w i t h t h e 2/8/06 Proposal. A l l m a t e r i a l i s guaranteed t o be as specified. A l l work to be completed in a p r o f e s s i o n a l manner a c c o r d i n g t o i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e s . The s q u a r e f o o t a g e o f t h e a r e a s t o be r e p a i r e d must be a g r e e d upon by a l l p a r t i e s w i t h i n 14 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s A g r e e m e n t . O t h e r w i s e , t h e S e t t l e m e n t A g r e e m e n t i s v o i d . Any r e p a i r s a g r e e d upon h e r e i n w i l l be p e r f o r m e d b y [ S u p e r i o r ] w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f t h e a g r e e d upon a r e a s f o r r e p a i r are determined. "5. [ S u p e r i o r ] a g r e e s t o i n s t a l l a F r e n c h d r a i n f r o m t h e c a r p o r t t o t h e s t r e e t w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e t h a t t h e a g r e e d upon a r e a s f o r r e p a i r o f t h e d r i v e w a y i n P a r a g r a p h No. 4 a r e d e t e r m i n e d . " On M a r c h 9, 2010, S u p e r i o r moved t o e n f o r c e t h e m e d i a t i o n agreement. F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , the t r i a l motion on M a r c h 10, court denied 2010. On M a r c h 15, 2010, the t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a bench t r i a l which i t r e c e i v e d e v i d e n c e o r e t e n u s . On M a r c h 19, 2010, trial court entered two judgments. One of granted Superior's partial-summary-judgment [Gaceks'] that those at the judgments m o t i o n "as t o t h e c l a i m s f o r W a n t o n n e s s , F r a u d , and S l a n d e r o f T i t l e " b u t d i d n o t g r a n t i t as t o t h e G a c e k s ' a n d / o r m e n t a l damages." The "claims f o r emotional o t h e r j u d g m e n t ("the s e c o n d M a r c h 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t " ) f o u n d i n f a v o r o f t h e G a c e k s w i t h r e s p e c t 5 2090967 to their and counterclaims awarded the of breach Gaceks damages o f c o n t r a c t and in the amount negligence of $60,500. N e i t h e r o f the judgments e n t e r e d by the t r i a l c o u r t e x p r e s s l y adjudicated Superior's On A p r i l 16, c l a i m s a g a i n s t the 2010, Superior f i l e d a postjudgment motion, which the t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d on A p r i l 20, t i m e l y appealed to the appeal Gaceks. 2010. Superior then supreme c o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e to t h i s court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975. Because n e i t h e r of the w r i t t e n judgments e n t e r e d trial the two 19, 2010, Superior's for the claims, court on March expressly c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e G a c e k s , we trial and court to enter by adjudicated remanded t h e a c t i o n a judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g those the trial court entered a j u d g m e n t amending s e c o n d M a r c h 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t t o add a p r o v i s i o n f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of the Gaceks w i t h r e s p e c t t o S u p e r i o r ' s c l a i m s the the against Gaceks. Factual In ("the January existing 2006, the driveway") Background Gaceks, at who their then residence surfaced, i n part, with concrete and, wanted concrete to install interlocking 6 had a driveway that was i n part, with asphalt, pavers ("pavers") 2090967 where t h e e x i s t i n g then a co-owner testified driveway that d r i v e w a y was l o c a t e d . T e d B u e l l , of he was l o c a t e d Superior measured along the with area who was Michael where the Darby, 2 existing i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e Gaceks w i t h a p r o p o s a l f o r i n s t a l l i n g p a v e r s where t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y was located. Buell further where Gacek Mark R. measurements told indicated approximately testified he m e a s u r e d h i m t o measure that 5,000 s q u a r e that and t h a t Gacek h a d s p e c i f i e d feet the area where he w a n t e d Buell's an a r e a o f the pavers installed. After measuring the area where the pavers were t o be i n s t a l l e d , B u e l l p r e p a r e d a w r i t t e n p r o p o s a l d a t e d F e b r u a r y 8, 2006, a n d s u b m i t t e d i t t o t h e G a c e k s . T h a t p r o p o s a l s t a t e d : "We h e r e b y submit s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and e s t i m a t e s f o r : " I n t e r l o c k i n g Concrete Pavers Gassick [ s i c ] Residence - Driveway "Scope o f W o r k : "-Level necessary r e q u i r e d base. portion of driveway for "-Install base foundation (89/10 [crushed l i m e s t o n e ] l e v e l i n g p a d a p p r o x . 3" - 4" on t o p of e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y . 2 B u e l l c e a s e d b e i n g an owner o f S u p e r i o r i n 2008. 7 2090967 " - I n s t a l l i n t e r l o c k i n g concrete pavers. (Paver s t y l e a n d c o l o r t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y homeowner) i n a r e a s d e t e r m i n e d b y owner. " A p p r o x : 5000 S q u a r e F e e t P r i c e p e r Sq. F t . = $9.00 Includes concrete pavers, installation. base material, "We p r o p o s e h e r e b y t o f u r n i s h m a t e r i a l a n d l a b o r -¬ complete in accordance with the above s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , f o r t h e sum o f : F o r t y F i v e T h o u s a n d and 00/100 D o l l a r s ($45,000) "Payment t o be made a s f o l l o w s : "$20,000 Down payment ( w i l l r e s e r v e before price increase). B a l a n c e due upon c o m p l e t i o n . materials " A l l m a t e r i a l i s g u a r a n t e e d t o be as s p e c i f i e d . A l l work t o be c o m p l e t e d i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l manner a c c o r d i n g t o s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e s . Any a l t e r a t i o n o r d e v i a t i o n f r o m above s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g e x t r a c o s t s w i l l be e x e c u t e d o n l y upon w r i t t e n o r d e r s , a n d w i l l become an e x t r a c h a r g e o v e r a n d above t h e e s t i m a t e . A l l agreements c o n t i n g e n t upon s t r i k e s , a c c i d e n t s o r d e l a y s b e y o n d o u r c o n t r o l . Owner t o c a r r y f i r e , t o r n a d o , and o t h e r n e c e s s a r y i n s u r a n c e . Our workers are f u l l y covered by Worker's Compensation insurance." The Gaceks accepted parties' contract. the the proposal, a n d i t became t h e The G a c e k s p a i d S u p e r i o r a down payment i n amount o f $20,000 i n M a r c h 2006. S u p e r i o r the p r o j e c t Colin b e g a n work on i n J u l y 2006. Schmidt, Superior's 8 foreman on the project, 2090967 testified co-owner of Schmidt to i n s t a l l t h e p a v e r s where t h e G a c e k s w a n t e d them i n s t a l l e d and Superior as follows. and i s now Darby, who i t s sole was owner, then a instructed t o l d h i m t h a t t h e a r e a where t h e p a v e r s were t o be amounted t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5,000 s q u a r e did not talking show S c h m i d t the contract, t o D a r b y t h a t he was "pretty much understood where that he the was Schmidt supposed old to feet. put c o n c r e t e where t h e c o n c r e t e was the still Although Darby understood to i n s t a l l driveway installed was." pavers the from pavers He on further top of the g o o d and t o remove t h e c o n c r e t e where i t w o u l d c a u s e t h e p a v e r s t o be t o o h i g h t o t i e i n t o the road or the garage. prepared the site f o r the d i s c o v e r e d t h a t bushes had edges of the Schmidt existing t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when he installation of the pavers, grown o v e r t h e a s p h a l t a l o n g driveway and that the area of he the the e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y c o v e r e d by t h e b u s h e s h a d n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d in Buell's additional measurements. area with He pavers realized would i n s t a l l e d i n an a r e a t h a t e x c e e d e d that result of the existing driveway 9 i n pavers 5,000 s q u a r e f e e t . t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a s k e d D a r b y i f D a r b y h a d edges covering had that being Schmidt realized that become overgrown the with 2090967 bushes, and Darby answered Schmidt testified they had n o t i c e d overgrown with i n the negative. t h a t he t h e n a s k e d t h e G a c e k s that t h e edges o f t h e d r i v e w a y bushes, and t h e y responded whether h a d become i n the negative. S c h m i d t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a s k e d t h e G a c e k s i f t h e y w a n t e d h i m t o i n s t a l l p a v e r s where t h e edges o f t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y h a d become overgrown existing Schmidt with driveway, testified additional area bushes and that this they f o r the e n t i r e answered he d i d n o t t e l l would length i n the Schmidt affirmative. t h e G a c e k s how a d d t o t h e 5,000 r e f e r r e d to i n the contract. of the testified square that, much feet because D a r b y h a d n o t shown S c h m i d t t h e c o n t r a c t b e f o r e he began work on the project, Schmidt d i d not required Superior to i n s t a l l know that the contract a 3" t o 4" b a s e o f 89/10 c r u s h e d l i m e s t o n e b e f o r e he i n s t a l l e d t h e p a v e r s a n d t h a t he d i d n o t install testified such a base. Schmidt that, except i n the a r e a s where he removed p o r t i o n s o f t h e c o n c r e t e s u r f a c e o f t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y , he m e r e l y p u t down a t h i n l a y e r o f s a n d on the c o n c r e t e and a s p h a l t s u r f a c e o f t h e e x i s t i n g before i n s t a l l i n g the pavers. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d driveway that, i n o r d e r t o make t h e p a v e r s l e v e l w i t h t h e r o a d a n d t h e d r i v e w a y , 10 2090967 he h a d t o remove a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1,000 the t o 1,500 concrete surface of the e x i s t i n g those areas, installing pavers the where overgrown he p u t down a pavers. 2" driveway t o 4" Schmidt layer estimated had f r o m t h e 5,000 s q u a r e square and t h a t , i n of sand before that installing h a d become i n c r e a s e d the area pavers feet of driveway t h e edges o f t h e e x i s t i n g w i t h bushes square covered with f e e t m e a s u r e d by B u e l l t o 6,600 feet. P e t e r Gacek and Mark Gacek, t h e G a c e k s ' s o n s , testified t h a t t h e edges o f t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y were n o t c o v e r e d w i t h g r a s s o r b u s h e s when B u e l l m e a s u r e d t h e e x i s t i n g Superior completed driveway. i t s work i n A u g u s t 2006. On September 8, 2006, t h e G a c e k s p a i d S u p e r i o r $12,000, b r i n g i n g t h e t o t a l amount t h e y h a d p a i d t o S u p e r i o r t o $32,000. D u r i n g S e p t e m b e r 2006, a dispute regarding the contended that, arose amount between the i n addition Superior Gaceks owed multiplied pavers by 1,600 t o t h e $45,000 square i n t h e 1, 6 0 0 - s q u a r e - f o o t feet) area the Superior. c o n t r a c t , t h e G a c e k s owed S u p e r i o r $14,400 foot and Gaceks Superior s p e c i f i e d by t h e ($9.00 p e r square for i t s installing of the driveway that S u p e r i o r c l a i m e d h a d been o v e r g r o w n w i t h b u s h e s when B u e l l h a d 11 2090967 m e a s u r e d t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y . The G a c e k s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e contract specified a total price of $45,000 p a v e r s i n t h e a r e a c o v e r e d by t h e e x i s t i n g for installing driveway. I n O c t o b e r 2006, t h e G a c e k s gave S u p e r i o r a c h e c k i n t h e amount o f $14,500, w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f t h e $13,000 difference b e t w e e n t h e $45,000 p r i c e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e $32,000 t h e G a c e k s h a d a l r e a d y payed S u p e r i o r and an extra $1,500 t h e y h a d a g r e e d t o p a y S u p e r i o r f o r r e m o v a l o f p o r t i o n s of the concrete surface of the e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y . The words " p a i d i n f u l l " were w r i t t e n on t h e c h e c k . S u p e r i o r n e g o t i a t e d that check Superior 1,600 but continued to square feet owed p a v e r s on the the of Gaceks $14,400 f o r i n s t a l l i n g an a d d i t i o n a l insist that existing that the driveway Superior c l a i m e d i t h a d n o t i n c l u d e d i n i t s o r i g i n a l measurement o f t h e existing driveway. After S u p e r i o r completed move, c r e a t i n g gaps b e t w e e n began into Gaceks to flow complained the to i t s work, t h e p a v e r s b e g a n the pavers. Gaceks' garage S u p e r i o r about In a d d i t i o n , p a v e r s ; however, S u p e r i o r d i d not c o r r e c t Pressley, the g e n e r a l manager 12 of water when i t r a i n e d . the problems to The with the the problems. Dan Southern Paver Systems, 2090967 t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n s p e c t e d t h e work p e r f o r m e d by S u p e r i o r at t h e Gaceks' r e q u e s t . He testified that he h a d f o u n d 89/10 c r u s h e d - l i m e s t o n e base under the pavers; that, areas where portions S u p e r i o r h a d removed no i n some of the existing d r i v e w a y , he h a d f o u n d s a n d u n d e r t h e p a v e r s a n d t h a t , i n t h e other areas existing where Superior driveway, testified he that the rest had had removed portions found nothing but of the pavers of the topsoil. He i n s t a l l e d by S u p e r i o r were i n s t a l l e d e i t h e r on t h e a s p h a l t s u r f a c e o f t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y o r on t h e c o n c r e t e s u r f a c e o f t h e e x i s t i n g driveway. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e p a v e r s i n t h e Gaceks' driveway h a d begun t o move, w h i c h between the pavers. He testified p a v e r s was c a u s e d b y t h e a b s e n c e that h a d c r e a t e d gaps t h e movement o f a p r o p e r base under of the them. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , as w a t e r g o t i n t o t h e gaps b e t w e e n t h e p a v e r s and more a n d more t r a f f i c t r a v e l e d over the driveway, more a n d more gaps w o u l d open up b e t w e e n t h e p a v e r s . he testified that, settle differently because soil, asphalt, Moreover, and c o n c r e t e a l l f r o m one a n o t h e r , i n o r d e r t o c o r r e c t t h e d e f e c t s i n t h e d r i v e w a y i n s t a l l e d by S u p e r i o r , a l l t h e p a v e r s w o u l d n e e d t o be removed, c l e a n e d , a n d s t o r e d on p a l l e t s w h i l e 13 2090967 the a r e a under 89/10 t h e p a v e r s was e x c a v a t e d a n d r e p l a c e d w i t h an c r u s h e d - l i m e s t o n e base and then a l l t h e pavers would have t o be i n s t a l l e d a g a i n . F u r t h e r m o r e , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s company w o u l d c h a r g e $67,436 t o p e r f o r m t h a t work. In addition, Pressley testified that t h e work S u p e r i o r had p e r f o r m e d had caused water t o f l o w i n t o t h e Gaceks' when i t r a i n e d a n d t h a t , garage i n order t o cure t h a t problem, p i p e w o u l d have t o be i n s t a l l e d so t h a t t h e w a t e r w o u l d f l o w the from garage t o t h e s t r e e t . P r e s s l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c o s t o f installing s u c h a d r a i n p i p e w o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y $5,000. S t a n d a r d o f Review Because the t r i a l court received evidence ore tenus, our r e v i e w i s governed by t h e f o l l o w i n g principles: "When o r e t e n u s evidence i s presented, a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s j u d g m e n t based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s of fact will n o t be disturbed unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e . J & M B a i l B o n d i n g Co. v . Hayes, 748 So. 2 d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; G a s t o n v . Ames, 514 So. 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . When t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a n o n j u r y case e n t e r s a judgment w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c findings of fact, the appellate c o u r t ' w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e findings necessary t o support the judgment.' T r a n s a m e r i c a C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v . AmSouth Bank, 608 So. 2 d 375, 378 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , ' [ u ] n d e r the o r e t e n u s r u l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d 14 2090967 a l l i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s necessary to support i t c a r r y a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' T r a n s a m e r i c a , 608 So. 2d a t 378. However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y applies the law to facts, no presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; M a r v i n ' s , I n c . v. R o b e r t s o n , 608 So. 2d 391 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ; G a s t o n , 514 So. 2d a t 878; S m i t h v. S t y l e A d v e r t i s i n g , I n c . , 470 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. 1 9 8 5 ) ; League v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695 (Ala. 1978). 'Questions of law are not s u b j e c t t o the ore t e n u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . ' Reed v. B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, 793 n. 2 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on l e g a l issues c a r r y no presumption of correctness on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e C a s h , 624 So. 2d 576, 577 (Ala. 1993). T h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s the a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o f a c t s de novo. A l l s t a t e , 675 So. 2d a t 379 ('[W]here the f a c t s before the t r i a l c o u r t are e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i s p u t e d and t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s o f law f o r the c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r , the [ t r i a l ] c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' ) . " C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. P o s t , App. 831 So. 2d 622, 627-28 ( A l a . C i v . 2002). Analysis Superior favor of the argues t h a t the Gaceks with trial respect court erred i n r u l i n g to Superior's c o n t r a c t c l a i m b e c a u s e i t b a s e d t h a t r u l i n g on two in breach-oferroneous grounds. F i r s t , S u p e r i o r argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t based i t s r u l i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e G a c e k s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e was a fixed-price contract specifying a total contract f i x e d p r i c e of $45,000 f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f p a v e r s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e 15 size 2090967 o f t h e a r e a where S u p e r i o r i n s t a l l e d p a v e r s and t h a t t h a t was an e r r o n e o u s g r o u n d f o r r u l i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e G a c e k s b e c a u s e , Superior argues, providing f o r a t o t a l p r i c e t o be d e t e r m i n e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the the contract was a unit-price contract u n i t p r i c e o f $9.00 p e r s q u a r e f o o t t i m e s t h e number o f s q u a r e f e e t where S u p e r i o r to Superior, i n s t a l l e d pavers. t h e t o t a l amount S u p e r i o r t h e c o n t r a c t was $59,400 was Thus, according e n t i t l e d t o under (6,600 s q u a r e f e e t m u l t i p l i e d by t h e u n i t p r i c e o f $9.00 e q u a l s $59,400) r a t h e r t h a n $45,000, and, t h e r e f o r e , S u p e r i o r a s s e r t s , t h e G a c e k s owe Second, Superior argues that Superior the t r i a l court $14,400. based i t s r u l i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e G a c e k s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s did of not execute a w r i t t e n order pavers charge on in providing the a d d i t i o n a l 1,600 accordance that specifications agreeing with "[a]ny the square provision alteration involving extra to the or costs installation feet of as the deviation will be an extra contract from above executed only upon w r i t t e n o r d e r s , and w i l l become an e x t r a c h a r g e o v e r and above t h e e s t i m a t e . " for the erroneous trial Superior court's because, argues t h a t t h i s ruling Superior in says, 16 favor i t is of second the ground Gaceks contrary to is the 2090967 i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s as e x p r e s s e d i n t h e e x p r e s s e d i n the However, t e s t i m o n y of assuming, arguments r e g a r d i n g court's ruling Superior's in without that of the legal basis Gaceks claim, not here a p p l i c a b l e , " t h i s record f o r the with and, i t was subject v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h So. 2d In 1013, 1020 order plaintiff to must considered, record, or even i f Servs. satisfy 926 that substantially See Mac 2d 216, Pon 218 Co. Ins. Found., P.C., 881 (Ala. 2003). prevail prove, on a among breach-of-contract other things, claim, "[its] p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t . " S t a t e Farm F i r e & Cas. Williams, to court." Liberty Nat'l Life Co. to [ c ] o u r t w i l l a f f i r m the o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was r e j e c t e d , by t h e t r i a l trial respect t r i a l c o u r t on any v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d by t h e regardless as Superior's grounds are c o r r e c t , the breach-of-contract exceptions deciding, another v a l i d favor and Buell. t h o s e two nonetheless presents contract So. 2d 1008, element, the 1013 (Ala. plaintiff v. In order to prove that i t performed i t s o b l i g a t i o n s under the v. V i n s a n t (Ala. Painting & Decorating 1982). "Substantial 17 own Co. 2005). must a Co., contract. 423 performance of So. a 2090967 contract does not contemplate d e t a i l b u t performance exact performance of a l l important parts." of every I d . "Whether a p a r t y has s u b s t a n t i a l l y performed a promise under a c o n t r a c t i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t t o be d e t e r m i n e d of each 335, from t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c a s e . " Cobbs v . F r e d B u r g o s C o n s t r . Co., 477 So. 2d 338 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . In t h e case now before us, the undisputed established that Superior d i d not i n s t a l l of 89/10 c r u s h e d limestone before r e q u i r e d by t h e c o n t r a c t . failure to i n s t a l l installing t h a t base caused Based the pavers the pavers as t o move, t h a t a l l o w e d gaps t o f o r m b e t w e e n t h e p a v e r s , a n d t h a t t h e gaps a l l o w e d w a t e r apart. a b a s e o f 3" t o 4" Pressley t e s t i f i e d that Superior's t h e movement o f t h e p a v e r s the pavers, which, evidence i n t o t h e gaps b e t w e e n i n t u r n , c a u s e d t h e p a v e r s t o move f u r t h e r on t h a t e v i d e n c e , the t r i a l court could have f o u n d t h a t , b e c a u s e S u p e r i o r d i d n o t i n s t a l l t h e 3" t o 4" b a s e of 89/10 c r u s h e d limestone before installing the pavers, Superior d i d not s u b s t a n t i a l l y perform the contract. In of this fact. fact, this case, the t r i a l When a trial court w i l l c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c c o u r t makes no s p e c i f i c assume t h a t t h e t r i a l 18 findings findings of c o u r t made t h o s e 2090967 f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g m e n t . See T r a n s a m e r i c a Commercial 378 F i n . C o r p . v . AmSouth Bank, N.A., 608 So. 2d 3 7 5 , ( A l a . 1992) ("Because t h e t r i a l judge made no specific f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h i s C o u r t w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l made those Accordingly, findings because from which t h e t r i a l necessary t o support the judge judgment."). the record contains credible evidence c o u r t c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t S u p e r i o r d i d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y p e r f o r m t h e c o n t r a c t , we a f f i r m t h e r u l i n g of the t r i a l c o u r t i n f a v o r o f t h e Gaceks w i t h r e s p e c t t o S u p e r i o r ' s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m on t h a t ground. S u p e r i o r a l s o argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r u l i n g in f a v o r o f t h e Gaceks w i t h r e s p e c t t o S u p e r i o r ' s c l a i m that t h e G a c e k s owed S u p e r i o r $14,400 f o r work a n d l a b o r S u p e r i o r had performed. " I n an a c t i o n f o r work a n d l a b o r , t h e measure o f r e c o v e r y i s t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f s u c h work a n d labor performed. I f s u c h w o r k a n d l a b o r h a s no r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e f o r t h e p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h i t was r e q u e s t e d , t h e r e may be no r e c o v e r y . Our e x a m i n a t i o n of the testimony discloses a conflict as t o q u a n t i t y , q u a l i t y a n d v a l u e o f s u c h work. I t i s t h e duty o f the c o u r t h e a r i n g the testimony ore tenus t o resolve the c o n f l i c t and render a judgment accordingly. Having reached and e n t e r e d such j u d g m e n t , i t i s s u p p o r t e d by a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s upon a p p e a l . Such p r e s u m p t i o n may be overcome o n l y b y a s h o w i n g o f a b s e n c e o f s u p p o r t i n the evidence or t h a t i t i s u n j u s t . " 19 2090967 Jones v. L e F l o r e , 421 So. 2d 1287, 1288 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982) (citation omitted). the trial court not install specified labor The r e c o r d evidence from which c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t , b e c a u s e S u p e r i o r d i d t h e b a s e o f 3" t o 4" o f 89/10 c r u s h e d by t h e c o n t r a c t , performed by S u p e r i o r Gaceks p a i d contains Superior the t o t a l value limestone o f t h e work a n d d i d n o t e x c e e d t h e $46,500 t h e and, t h e r e f o r e , that Superior was n o t e n t i t l e d t o p r e v a i l on i t s c l a i m t h a t t h e G a c e k s owed S u p e r i o r $14,400 f o r work a n d l a b o r done. As n o t e d a b o v e , b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t make any s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n t h i s c a s e , we w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l necessary c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t . See T r a n s a m e r i c a , Moreover, because a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t o t a l value supra. o f t h e work and l a b o r p e r f o r m e d by S u p e r i o r d i d n o t e x c e e d t h e $46,500 t h e Gaceks p a i d Superior i s supported by c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e , we cannot r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e Gaceks with respect to Superior's c l a i m t h a t t h e G a c e k s owed S u p e r i o r $14,400 f o r work a n d l a b o r done. See J o n e s , Superior also argues that the t r i a l supra. court erred in a w a r d i n g t h e G a c e k s damages i n t h e amount o f $60,500 on t h e i r c l a i m s because, S u p e r i o r says, t h a t award c o n s t i t u t e d t h e c o s t 20 2090967 to repair the difference with the defects in Superior's between the market v a l u e driveway constructed with contract accordance the in and work of the a market circumstances constitutes of case, 239, the property manner value of e r r o r because, the award of Superior economic waste. I n c . v. K e n t , 230 N.Y. this this of in the as a c t u a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d by S u p e r i o r . S u p e r i o r a r g u e s t h a t t h i s was the Gaceks' workmanlike the Gaceks' p r o p e r t y w i t h the driveway instead cites Jacob 129 N.E. 889 repair & given costs Youngs, (1921), i n s u p p o r t of argument. I n J a c o b & Youngs, K e n t c o n t r a c t e d w i t h J a c o b & Y o u n g s , Inc. ("Jacob"), a contractor, to b u i l d a of approximately $77,000. One of the dwelling for a price specifications p l u m b i n g work p r o v i d e d t h a t " ' [ a ] l l w r o u g h t - i r o n well galvanized, lap welded pipe of the N.E. and a t 890. Kent Jacob completed the occupied the d i s c o v e r e d i n M a r c h 1915 in factories Jacob to do other the than known a t 240, c o n s t r u c t i o n i n June dwelling without the p i p e must be grade " s t a n d a r d p i p e " o f R e a d i n g m a n u f a c t u r e . '" 230 N.Y. for complaint as 129 1914, until he t h a t some o f t h e p i p e had b e e n made Reading. plumbing work 21 The architect anew. Because then ordered most of the 2090967 plumbing pipes were encased within the walls, Jacob's c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h a t o r d e r w o u l d have r e q u i r e d i t t o d e m o l i s h substantial expense. of of the completed dwelling at great J a c o b d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e o r d e r and r e q u e s t e d a certificate the portions that the f i n a l payment was due. Upon r e f u s a l of c e r t i f i c a t e , Jacob sued Kent t o r e c o v e r the u n p a i d b a l a n c e the c o n t r a c t p r i c e , w h i c h was e x c l u d e d e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by the pipe $3,483.46. The trial court J a c o b t h a t t e n d e d t o show that b r a n d o f p i p e i n s t a l l e d was o f t h e same q u a l i t y as R e a d i n g and directed a verdict in favor of a p p e a l e d . The A p p e l l a t e D i v i s i o n o f t h e New reversed the t r i a l Kent, the c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and o r d e r e d a new judgment Cardozo, w r i t i n g Jacob Y o r k Supreme C o u r t K e n t t h e n a p p e a l e d t o t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f New affirmed and of the Appellate f o r the m a j o r i t y , trial. York, Division. which Justice stated: " I n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , we t h i n k t h e measure o f t h e a l l o w a n c e i s n o t the c o s t of replacement, which would be great, but the d i f f e r e n c e i n v a l u e , w h i c h w o u l d be e i t h e r n o m i n a l or n o t h i n g . Some o f t h e e x p o s e d s e c t i o n s [ o f p i p e ] might perhaps have been replaced at moderate e x p e n s e . [ K e n t ] d i d n o t l i m i t h i s demand t o them, b u t t r e a t e d t h e p l u m b i n g as a u n i t t o be c o r r e c t e d from c e l l a r t o r o o f . In p o i n t of f a c t , [Jacob] never reached the stage at which evidence of the e x t e n t of the a l l o w a n c e became n e c e s s a r y . The t r i a l c o u r t h a d e x c l u d e d e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e c t was u n s u b s t a n t i a l , 22 2090967 and i n v i e w o f t h a t r u l i n g t h e r e was no o c c a s i o n f o r [ J a c o b ] t o go f a r t h e r w i t h an o f f e r o f p r o o f . We t h i n k , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e o f f e r , i f i t h a d been made, w o u l d n o t o f n e c e s s i t y have been d e f e c t i v e b e c a u s e directed to difference i n value. I t i s true that i n most c a s e s t h e c o s t o f r e p l a c e m e n t i s t h e m e a s u r e . Spence v . Ham, [163 N.Y. 220, 57 N.E. 412 ( 1 9 0 0 ) ] . The owner i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e money w h i c h w i l l p e r m i t him t o c o m p l e t e , u n l e s s t h e c o s t o f c o m p l e t i o n i s g r o s s l y a n d u n f a i r l y o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e good t o be a t t a i n e d . When t h a t i s t r u e , t h e m e a s u r e i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n v a l u e . S p e c i f i c a t i o n s c a l l , l e t us say, f o r a f o u n d a t i o n b u i l t o f g r a n i t e q u a r r i e d i n V e r m o n t . On t h e c o m p l e t i o n of the b u i l d i n g , the owner learns that through the blunder of a s u b c o n t r a c t o r p a r t o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n h a s been b u i l t o f g r a n i t e o f t h e same q u a l i t y q u a r r i e d i n New H a m p s h i r e . The measure o f a l l o w a n c e i s n o t t h e c o s t o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . 'There may be o m i s s i o n s o f t h a t [kind] which could not afterwards be supplied e x a c t l y as c a l l e d f o r b y t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h o u t t a k i n g down t h e b u i l d i n g t o i t s f o u n d a t i o n s , a n d a t t h e same t i m e t h e o m i s s i o n may n o t a f f e c t t h e v a l u e o f the b u i l d i n g f o r use or o t h e r w i s e , e x c e p t so s l i g h t l y as t o be h a r d l y a p p r e c i a b l e . ' Handy v. B l i s s , 204 Mass. 513, 519, 90 N.E. 864, 134 Am. S t . Rep. 673 [ ( 1 9 1 0 ) ] . C f . F o e l l e r v. H e i n t z , 137 W i s . 169, 178, 118 N.W. 543, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 321 [ ( 1 9 0 8 ) ] ; O b e r l i e s v. B u l l i n g e r , 132 N.Y. 598, 601, 30 N.E. 999 [ ( 1 8 9 2 ) ] ; 2 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s , § 805, p. 1 5 4 1 . The r u l e t h a t g i v e s a remedy i n c a s e s of s u b s t a n t i a l performance w i t h compensation f o r d e f e c t s o f t r i v i a l o r i n a p p r e c i a b l e importance has b e e n d e v e l o p e d by t h e c o u r t s as an i n s t r u m e n t o f j u s t i c e . The measure o f t h e a l l o w a n c e must be s h a p e d t o t h e same e n d . " 230 N.Y. a t 244-45, 129 N.E. a t 891-92 I n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e (emphasis added). u s , however, t h e e v i d e n c e support a f i n d i n g that the defects 23 i n Superior's would performance 2090967 were substantial, Jacob's conclude rather performance that the t h a n n o m i n a l as was in trial Jacob court & Youngs. the defect in we e r r i n awarding d i d not Accordingly, the G a c e k s t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r t h e d e f e c t s i n S u p e r i o r ' s work b a s e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e d e c o n o m i c Superior next argues that the trial waste. court a w a r d i n g t h e Gaceks $60,500 b e c a u s e , S u p e r i o r s a y s , erred in regardless of whether a w a r d i n g t h e Gaceks t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r t h e d e f e c t s i n S u p e r i o r ' s work w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e e c o n o m i c w a s t e , t h e p r o p e r measure o f damages was t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e m a r k e t value of in a the Gaceks' workmanlike market v a l u e property manner with the driveway c o n s t r u c t e d i n accordance with the c o n t r a c t and o f t h e G a c e k s ' p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e d r i v e w a y as i t was a c t u a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d . However, i n Kohn v. J o h n s o n , 565 2d 165, owner who the 168-69 ( A l a . 1990), t h e supreme c o u r t had sued a c o n t r a c t o r because c o n s t r u c t i n g an a d d i t i o n t o h e r home was held that So. an o f d e f e c t i v e work i n e n t i t l e d to recover t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t o f m a k i n g t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s work c o n f o r m t o the contract where t h a t amount d i d n o t constitute w a s t e . B a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Kohn, we trial court conclude that d i d not e r r i n awarding t h e Gaceks 24 economic the cost the to 2090967 repair the d e f e c t s i n Superior's Superior next argues work. that the trial court erred in a w a r d i n g t h e G a c e k s $60,500 w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g S u p e r i o r a s e t o f f in t h e amount o f $14,400. However, t h i s argument has no m e r i t b e c a u s e , as we d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e t r i a l court's rulings i n f a v o r o f t h e Gaceks w i t h r e s p e c t t o S u p e r i o r ' s c l a i m s recovery of consequently, the $14,400 S u p e r i o r was are due to be seeking affirmed, not e n t i t l e d to a s e t o f f and, i n that amount. Finally, denying Superior argues t h a t the t r i a l court Superior's motion to enforce the mediation erred i n agreement. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h a t m o t i o n , and t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l does n o t c o n t a i n a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h a t hearing. In the absence of a t r a n s c r i p t must presume t h a t t h e t r i a l motion evidence to enforce of t h a t hearing, court's order denying the mediation a g r e e m e n t was we Superior's supported by i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e h e a r i n g . See P r e s c o t t v. P r e s c o t t , 6 So. 3d 552, 554 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court. AFFIRMED. Pittman, J . , concurs. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t , without writings. 25

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.