Construction Affiliates, Inc. VS Bonny Barry Pullen, Wife of/and Bailey P. Pullen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1418 17 CYP Mg CONSTRUCTION AFFILIATES INC VERSUS BONNY BARRY PULLEN WIFE OF AND BAILEY P PULLEN On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Docket No 2007 10225 Division H Honorable Donald M Fendlason Judge Honorable Allison H Penzato Judge Gary J Giepert Ricci Giepert New Orleans LA Attorney for F Pierre Livaudais Attorneys for Defendants Appellees Appellants Bonny Barry Pullen wife ofand Bailey P Pullen Mandeville LA and Plaintiff Appellant Appellee Construction Affiliates Inc Elizabeth W Wiedemann Mandeville LA BEFORE PARRO PETTIGREW AND MCDONALD JJ Judgment rendered JUL 9 2010 Judge Fendlason presided over the trial and provided reasons for judgment After his retirement a judgment in accord with those reasons was signed by Judge Penzato pursuant to LSAR S 8 4209 13 PARRO J Construction Affiliates Inc CAI appeals a judgment awarding Dr Bailey P Pullen and his wife Bonny Barry Pullen the Pullens an amount needed for labor and materials on a renovation and addition to their residence after the Pullens terminated CAI services on the project The Pullens filed a cross appeal s seeking additional damages and reversal or reduction of the award to CAI for work it had completed which offset a portion of the Pullens damages Based on our review of the evidence we reverse in part amend in part and affirm as amended FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In early 2005 CAI made a proposal to the Pullens concerning renovations and enlargement of their home for a designbuild contract price of 322 500 The Pullens paid a 15 deposit in May 2005 and signed the contract proposal 000 in July Building permits were obtained on August 15 2005 and work began on poured concrete footings for the addition to the home Hurricane Katrina disrupted the building schedule and caused extensive damage throughout the region when it struck on August 29 2005 Work on the house eventually resumed in October 2005 but the Pullens became unhappy with the delays and the quality of the work done by CAI and terminated its services in May 2006 although the project was still incomplete CAI sued the Pullens for the unpaid balance of completed work and lost profits basically the remaining contract balance of 67 107 124 minus 29 for the cost of certain remedial work that CAI 25 807 agreed was needed The Pullens reconvened alleging defective workmanship and asking for a sum sufficient to pay for all of the errors in design costs to cure errors in construction failures as outlined above and damages to the existing structure After a trial the court found fault on the part of both parties and awarded CAI 68 for work it had already performed for which it had not been paid 814 2 Two change orders eventually increased the price to 357 474 2 less 17 representing the costs to correct defects in that work plus 06 944 69 363 5 for storage of certain doors CAI does not contest this award The court then awarded the Pullens the amount of 47 for the cost of materials 33 189 and 46 for labor to complete the project 12 730 The total award to the Pullens was offset by the award in favor of CAI resulting in a net award to the Pullens in the amount of 37 plus legal interest 82 685 Both parties challenge this award with CAI contending that no completion costs should have been awarded and the Pullens contending that the evidence showed additional labor costs should have been awarded The Pullens also seek reversal or reduction of the award to CAI for the portion of the work that had been completed but not paid before suit was filed and for storage fees incurred by CAI APPLICABLE LAW Standard of Review A court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an error of law or a factual finding that is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong Morris v Safeway Ins Co of Louisiana 031361 La App 1st Cir 9 897 04 17 2d So 616 617 writ denied 04 2572 La 12 888 So 872 04 17 2d The supreme court has posited a twopart test for the appellate review of facts in order to affirm the factual findings of the trier of fact 1 the appellate court must find from the record that there is a reasonable factual basis for the finding of the trier of fact and 2 the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong manifestly erroneous Hill 505 So 1120 1127 La 1987 2d Mart v Thus if there is no reasonable factual basis in the record for the trier of fact finding no additional inquiry is necessary s to conclude there was manifest error However if a reasonable factual basis exists an appellate court may set aside a factual finding only if after reviewing the record in its entirety it determines the factual finding was clearly wrong See Stobart v State through Dep of Transp and Dev 617 So 880 882 La t 2d 1993 Moss v State 071686 La App 1st Cir 8 993 So 687 693 writ 08 2d 3 denied 082166 La 11 996 So 1092 If the trial court findings are 08 14 2d s reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety the court of appeal may not reverse those findings even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact it would have weighed the evidence differently Roebuck Hulsey v Sears Co 96 2704 La App 1st Cir 12 705 So 1173 117677 97 29 2d With regard to questions of law the appellate review is simply a review of whether the trial court was legally correct or legally incorrect Hidalgo v Wilson Certified Exp Inc 941322 La App 1st Cir 5 676 So 114 116 On 96 14 2d legal issues the appellate court gives no special weight to the findings of the trial court but exercises its constitutional duty to review questions of law and render judgment on the record In re Mashburn Marital Trust 04 1678 La App 1st Cir 05 29 12 924 So 242 246 writ denied 061034 La 9 937 S0 2d 06 22 2d 384 A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial Legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights When such a prejudicial error of law skews the trial court finding as to issues of material fact the s appellate court is required if it can to render judgment on the record by applying the correct law and determining the essential material facts de novo Evans v Lun rin 970541 970577 La 2 708 So 731 735 If only one of the 98 6 2d factual findings is tainted by the application of incorrect principles of law that are prejudicial the appellate court de novo review is limited to the finding so s affected Picou v Ferrara 483 So 915 918 20 La 1986 Rideau v State 2d Farm Mut Auto Ins Co 060894 La App 1st Cir 8 970 So 564 07 29 2d 571 writ denied 07 2228 La 1 972 So 1168 08 11 2d Construction Contracts A written contract is the law between the parties and the parties will be held to full performance in good faith of the obligations flowing from their contract LSAC art 1983 Lantech Const Co L v Speed 08 811 La C C App 5th Cir 5 15 S0 289 293 09 26 3d 4 An agreement in which one party undertakes to construct a building for a specified price and furnishes either his work alone or his labor and materials is a construction contract or contract to build The price is compensation for the work performed and materials used in constructing the home See LSA C arts 2756 and 2757 Barcat LLC v Nail 416 44 La App 2nd Cir 7 15 So 1246 1250 09 1 3d Implicit in every construction contract is the requirement that the work of a builder be performed in a good workmanlike manner free from defects in materials or workmanship City of Plaquemine v North American Const Inc 00 2810 La App 1st Cir 11 832 So 447 464 writs denied 030329 and 02 8 2d 030345 La 4 841 So 796 and 798 03 21 2d If a contractor fails to do the work he has contracted to do or if he does not execute it in the manner and at the time he has agreed to do it he shall be liable in damages for the losses that may ensue from his non compliance with his contract LSAC art 2769 C A s contractor liability is not strict or absolute nor is it to be presumed from the mere fact that a building develops structural problems after construction is completed Harris v Williams 28 La App 2nd Cir 8 679 So 990 512 96 23 2d 994 A building owner seeking to recover damages from a construction contractor for defects bears the burden of proving 1 both the existence and nature of the defects 2 that the defects were due to faulty materials or workmanship and 3 the cost of repairing the defects Mount Mariah Baptist Church Inc v Pannell s Assoc Elec Inc 36 La App 2nd Cir 12 835 So 880 887 writ 361 02 20 2d denied 030555 La 5 842 So 1101 03 2 2d The appropriate measure of damages as a result of a breach of a contract to build is what it will take to place the homeowner in the position he deserved to be in when the building was completed the owner is entitled to cost of repairs necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one or the amount paid to remedy the defect Martinez v Reno 99114 La App 5th Cir 9 742 99 15 2d So 1014 1016 Stated another way if the owner meets the burden of proof the remedy is to reduce the contract price in an amount necessary to perfect or 5 complete the work according to the terms of the contract Moore v Usrey Usrey 52 So 551 554 La App 2nd Cir 1951 2d Louisiana Civil Code article 2765 states that the owner has a right to cancel the bargain he has made at his pleasure even in case the work has already been commenced by paying the contractor for the expense and labor already incurred along with such damages as the nature of the case may require A contractor may still recover part of the contract price notwithstanding defects when substantial performance is shown Cascio v Carpet 42 La App 2nd Cir 653 07 24 10 968 So 844 851 2d Mitigation of Damages According to LSAC art 2002 an obligee must make reasonable efforts C to mitigate the damage caused by the obligor failure to perform s When an obligee fails to make these efforts the obligor may demand that the damages be reduced accordingly Mitigation of damages is the functional equivalent of comparative fault within the framework of a damage claim for breach of contract Thibaut v Thibaut 607 So 587 614 La App 1st Cir 1992 writs denied 612 2d 2d So 37 and 101 La 1993 The duty only requires that the injured party take reasonable steps to minimize the consequences of the injury The standard by which these steps are judged is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances Easterling v Halter Marine Inc 470 So 221 223 24 La App 2d 4th Cir writ denied 472 So 920 La 1985 2d ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR CAI contends in its first assignment of error that it was legal error for the court not to award its contract balance of 121 when it awarded the Pullens 486 an amount to complete the project It argues that the Pullens did not suffer any damages to finish the project because they could have allowed CAI to complete the work or could have completed it for less than the contract balance as evidenced by the court award s In its second assignment of error CAI again challenges the award of the costs to complete the project since CAI was ordered 6 to vacate the site before the job was finished It claims that because the Pullens cancelled the contract they had no right to damages from CAI for its failure to complete it In its third assignment of error CAI argues that the Pullens did not pray for the amount needed to complete the project but only for curative costs therefore the court erred in awarding them completion costs CAI further contends in its fourth assignment of error that if this court reverses the award of completion costs to the Pullens CAI is due contractual interest in the amount of 5 1 per month on the unpaid balance of any payments over 30 days past due The Pullens contend CAI has mischaracterized the award of damages as completion costs when in fact the evidence shows that these were additional curative costs incurred to mitigate and repair the damage done to the original house when CAI left it open to the weather as well as curative costs not recognized in the expert summary upon which the court finding was based s s Their first assignment of error challenges the trial court finding that they failed to s mitigate their damages They allege their claims for labor and materials to cure the defects were broken out from the total bill to finish the house which was considerably more than the amount claimed for the remedial work 3 In their second assignment of error the Pullens seek an additional amount to reflect the full amount of their labor costs 93 rather than the lower amount 25 450 awarded by the court They claim the court erred in concluding they paid too much to their laborers based on the testimony of a local building contractor Steve Owens who testified as a rebuttal expert for CAI when a much better qualified expert Arthur B Middleton III an architect who testified on their behalf stated that the postKatrina labor costs paid by the Pullens were comparable to the labor costs he incurred for repairs to his own home They claim in their third assignment of error that the evidence showed they chose the least expensive means to cure CAI construction defects within a reasonable time and the court s 3 After CAI services were terminated the Pullens spent approximately 625 to finish the s 000 renovations and additions to their house 7 erred by failing to recognize that Finally they contend this court should reverse or reduce the award to CAI since CAI admitted in its petition that the cost of necessary remedial work was 29 and because there was insufficient 25 807 evidence to support the claim for storage costs They also argue in their fourth assignment of error that the court erred in awarding CAI 56 for 63 223 completed work when that work was done poorly In response to the Pullens CAI contends they have misread the judgment noting that the court specifically stated in its written reasons for judgment that the award of 17 was for curative work and the award of 93 was to 06 944 45 919 complete the project CAI argues it would make no sense for the court to award one amount for curative work and then award an additional amount for more curative work as the Pullens contend CAI claims the 17 awarded for 06 944 curative work was extensively detailed in Owens report and that the higher amount claimed by the Pullens included many substantial design changes that resulted in additional costs CAI argues that it paid its carpenters far less than the 35hour paid by the Pullens and that according to Owens testimony the 2006 regional average of hourly wages for carpenters in St Tammany was 17 per 34 hour CAI further contends that much of the work described by the Pullens carpenters as curative was not and that the carpenters invoices also reflect inordinate amounts of time for the work they claimed to be doing In rebuttal the Pullens note that the trial was never about the cost of finishing the house but was about the cost of repairing a water damaged home and correcting poor construction techniques workmanship in the work performed by CAI poor design and defective They argue that when the court stated it was awarding an amount needed to complete the project the project meant the work required to cure the defects which were not only aesthetically deficient but were also structurally incorrect and dangerous 4 This amount actually represents unpaid completed work and storage fees less the cost of curative work 8 REVIEW OF EVIDENCE The record in this case could be a script for an episode of HGTV popular s Holmes on Homes series in which the super contractor rescues homeowners from renovations gone wrong Adding drama to our script is the fury of Hurricane Katrina which wreaked havoc in the area where the Pullens home renovations had been started a month earlier by CAI Now this court must pick up where the television drama ends after the last nail is in place when the parties are trying to sort out who owes what to whom Cal Jones the owner and principal of CAI testified on its behalf Jones is a licensed architect and has a general contracting license a license in residential construction and a construction management license He stated that over the last 29 years CAI had been involved in residential and commercial construction including work on the Morial Convention Center and the Zephyr baseball stadium he estimated that CAI had done about 2 billion dollars worth of work in that 6 time CAI first involvement with the Pullens was designing a home intended for s some other property that they owned But when they bought the property on Jack Fork Road that is the subject of this litigation they scrapped those plans and decided instead to renovate some buildings on the new property CAI first job s was renovating a caretaker cottage so the Pullens would have a temporary place s to live while work was done on the main house Other than a few minor punch list items that CAI easily corrected the Pullens had no complaints about the work done on the cottage and began consultations with Jones to design and build renovations and additions to the main house The original structure of the main house was about 720 square feet under beam and the plans involved renovating that building and adding approximately 2000 square feet under beam in living space on three sides of the house plus approximately another 2000 square feet of porches decks and carport area On January 17 2005 CAI sent a letter proposal to the Pullens outlining the scope of the work and proposing a contract price of 322 The estimated 250 9 time to completion was 180 days and the anticipated start date was February or March The let er also stated that a 15 deposit would be due upon the 000 Pullens acceptance of the contract That check was written on May 12 2005 and was received by CAI shortly thereafter At that point the plans were refined and by July 15 CAI submit ed the final set of plans to the permit ing office The plans were approved and all permits were granted by August 15 2005 Photographs in the record dated August 22 2005 show that work had begun on poured concrete footings for the additions to the house On August 25 CAI invoiced the Pullens in the amount of 63 for site work concreteFour daysons some masonryKatrina 337 foundati later Hurricane work and some preparatory work for framing roared through the area leaving landscapes and lives so altered that work on the Pullens project was brought to a standstill In the aftermath of Katrina people were displaced and businesses were shuttered construction materials and skil ed workers were hard to find Jones testified that CAI work force was completely gone Since its regular framing s crew was unavailable CAI was forced to hire less experienced carpenters who had never worked together before The lumber company that CAI generally used was closed therefore it had to find other sources for many materials Additionally because so much construction work was being done in the wake of the hurricane the demand for and price of both materials and labor increased Jones testified that in early October CAI began framing the exterior of the house A bil for this work in the amount of 19 was submitted to the Pullens 687 on October 10 and was paid By late October photographs show that the addition on the side of the house facing the pond was decked and framed and exterior framing had begun on the laundry area on one side and the bedroom addition on the other side of the house An invoice for this Anothern the amount ofsubmitted work i invoice was 11 531 was submitted November 1 and was paid December 20 to cover completion of most of the exterior framing and some 5 This invoice was paid September 9 2005 10 charges for electrical and plumbing work This invoice in the amount of 32 369 was also paid Photographs show that by early January the roof had been framed some of the exterior walls had been enclosed the carport had been added and some interior framing had begun Jones said that by mid February CAI was trying to finish the roofing on the carport and on the addition to the north side of the house overlooking the pond A rubberized roofing membrane had been attached to the section of the roof over the carport Jones said about five ninety percent of the framing was complete interior doors had been ordered and most of the plumbing had been installed An invoice in the amount of 719 60 was submitted February 15 2006 Only 25 was paid to CAI on that 000 invoice because the work had not progressed sufficiently for the bank inspector to approve payment of the full amount On February 17 the first change order was prepared by CAI and signed by Dr Pullen In this document some items were added to the project and others were dropped or revised resulting in a net addition to the total cost in the amount of 23 Jones testified that by mid March when the February invoice had still 800 not been paid in full he sent the Pullens a letter requesting payment and putting them on notice of default on their contract with CAI 6 In that letter CAI offered to continue providing minimal labor to make corrections to the framing in preparation for a framing inspection Another invoice was sent to the Pullens on April 17 for an additional 73 this invoice also remained unpaid Jones identified a 095 second change order reflecting work that had been discussed with the Pullens some of which was for materials that were already installed This change order which added 11 to the project and brought the total project cost to 174 224 357 was not signed by the Pullens On May 24 2006 the Pullens attorney 6 It is not clear from the record that the Pullens ever received this letter Jones testified at one point that he hand delivered it to Mrs Pullen but she testified that she had never received it from him Dr Pullen also testified that he had never seen that letter R 1187 The evidence includes a Contract Balance Summary submitted by CAI which shows the April 17 billing duplicated 25 shown on the February 15 invoice Therefore the correct amount to be 000 paid on the April 17 invoice was 48 095 11 sent Jones a letter advising him that CAI was to immediately cease work on the project based on serious deficiencies in workmanship including structural problems threatening the integrity of the building These defects were confirmed for the Pullens by Arthur B Middleton III an architect who had reviewed the project at their request s Middleton report was sent to CAI in June listing a number of problems According to Jones the Pullens had never told him they were dissatisfied with CAI progress or workmanship or that they had anyone reviewing CAI work s s on their behalf Jones said there were a couple of little things that Dr Pullen had pointed out which were easily corrected and would be taken care of during the finishing work on the project Jones acknowledged that the work was moving a little bit slower than it would have pre Katrina that the job was staffed with some unskilled workers and that he only visited the site once every two to three weeks until early 2006 when he was there once or twice a week However Jones said many of the items described by Middleton were minor and would have been corrected by CAI had it been allowed to complete the project After receiving s Middleton report CAI asked a local contractor Steve Owens to prepare a cost estimate for labor and materials needed to correct all of the items listed by Middleton He estimated that all the items could be addressed for 29 25 807 However Owens did not believe all the changes shown on Middleton list were s actually needed so he prepared a second estimate showing the cost of all the necessary changes would be 17 Jones testified that CAI offered to cure 06 944 all of the problems listed by Middleton but the Pullens were unwilling to have CAI do any further work on the house and they rejected the offer It is clear from the testimony of the Pullens that their assessment of the deficiencies in CAI work was very different from the easily rectified little s problems described by Jones At the outset Mrs Pullen testified that in spite of many requests Jones never gave them a copy of the June 15 2005 final plans for the house which caused difficulties for them throughout the project 12 They had only an incomplete preliminary sketch of the general layout of the structure According to Mrs Pullen she and her husband had many meetings with Jones at which they expressed serious complaints about CAI lack of progress When they s paid CAI 15 in mid May Jones assured them that he would commence work 000 within a week Yet it was mid August before CAI started working on the project The Pullens daughter was getting married in May 2006 and it was important to them that the house be completed by that date After Katrina Jones assured them that he could have them in the house by December 2005 When that did not happen Jones guaranteed that they would be in by March 2006 and that everything would be finished by that date except the exterior painting of the back of the house Obviously that completion date was also not met At their meetings with Jones the Pullens also complained about many other matters A major problem described by Mrs Pullen concerned the kitchen and bathrooms Despite her many conversations with Jones about her need for a food pantry in the kitchen he insisted that the food pantry could be located across the entrance hallway from the kitchen Elaine Beck a family friend who was an interior designer volunteered to help design the layout of the kitchen and bathrooms Mrs Pullen said she asked Jones several times to get in touch with Beck but he never did so When it was time to pick out the shower doors and other bathroom fixtures Mrs Pullen could not get information from Jones about the budget for those items and suggestions about where she should shop for them There was also a problem with the proposed layout for the master bath in that the shower door would open right onto the bathtub and the shower itself appeared too small When she expressed her concerns to Jones about the size of the shower he assured her in his very soft spoken manner that it was adequate space Mrs Pullen said she could not really tell from the incomplete drawings or even the framedout shower area whether it would be large enough Mrs Pullen was at the site almost every day because the Pullens had an operating horse farm on their property 13 She identified a series of photographs that she had taken of the project at various times during the construction These photographs showed heavy water damage throughout the house A portion of the roof on the porch of the original main house was removed by CAI very soon after the work began allowing water to be gushing in through the opening Not long afterward the sides of the original house were also removed exposure to the weather continued for many months Mrs Pullen said As a result the heart pine floors in the original house which the Pullens loved and had planned to retain became so water damaged warped and mildewed that they had to be torn out and replaced after CAI services were terminated Sheetrock on the walls of the s original house was soaked and began to peel it also had to be replaced due to the mold house The water also damaged a set of built in bookcases in the original Mrs Pullen testified that at one point she opened a drawer in the bookcase and it had two to three inches of water in it The photographs showed that the beautiful tongue and groove wood ceilings in the original house had also suffered water damage and were badly stained Mrs Pullen said she became so upset about the water damage to the ceiling boards that she got on a ladder with blow dryers to try to dry the wood After CAI was terminated the ceiling of the original house had to be refurbished by sandblasting several times and refinishing it In addition to the damage to the original house some of the subfloors in the new rooms had water standing on them for so long that the plywood began delaminating the photographs showed extensive puddles on the floor and large areas of mold throughout the house Mrs Pullen said that after numerous phone calls and complaints to Jones about all the water CAI brought in a blue tarp and folded it around the open section of roof However since it was not secured properly the tarp just blew open and continued to allow water in with every rainfall The open sides of the original house merely had plastic sheeting taped across them which also blew open Mrs Pullen testified that when she complained to Jones about the exposure to the weather and the damage that was being caused he tried to placate her by 14 telling her it was very common for houses to take on water during construction However Jones admitted to her that his carpenter was inexperienced and was not aware that he was not supposed to be taking off sections of the roof Although Jones promised to secure the roof that promise was never kept Dr Pullen confirmed his wife testimony and described his own concerns s He said that when the project started his first concern was that someone had opened up the 900 square feet home completely to all the weather When he questioned Jones he never received a satisfactory answer regarding this situation His second concern was that he and his wife never had a complete set of blueprints Dr Pullen said the first time he saw the July 15 2005 set of complete plans was when he was in his lawyer office for his deposition s sheetrock around the entrance bathroom and behind the When the bookcases became soaked with water Dr Pullen asked the carpenter foreman to take it down but he answered that he was not skilled enough to remove that because he feared he might damage the cypress bookcases Dr Pullen said he then called Jones and was assured that the problem would be taken care of But even to the end of the project it was never taken care of All the sheetrock on the walls of the original house had to be taken down because it was soaked and mildewed Dr Pullen said he was also worried about the carport because the main support beam was sagging s CAI efforts to reinforce the beam were ineffective and it had to be propped up There was also a drop of about two and onehalf inches between the kitchen and the dining room Other matters that troubled Dr Pullen were the eyebrows or roof lines at the eaves the quality of materials being used and the type of windows that were installed Instead of using tongue and groove 1 x 6 boards under the eaves CAI was using a much thinner substance Texture 111 When Dr Pullen asked that the more substantial material be used Jones drew up a change order and charged more for it Dr Pullen reiterated his wife testimony concerning the water throughout s the original and new sections of the house He said that although his work often 15 took him out of the city he probably saw water in the house 30 or 40 times He testified that he called this to Jones attention and asked him to remedy it many times Each time Jones responded that they would take care of it However the tarpaulin coverage that CAI provided was just temporary and the water never stopped coming in Dr Pullen said that during one of his meetings with Jones he looked him in the face and said you have destroyed this 900 square feet building Jones assured him that they would try to secure it but Dr Pullen responded that it has been taking on water for eight months and it still not s secured On cross examination Dr Pullen stated that when CAI services were s terminated in May 2006 the roof decking was still not complete and it was still raining into the house Dr Pullen identified a number of documents detailing the carpentry work that was done after CAI services were terminated s He indicated this was curative work and the total labor cost was 93 He also identified a series 25 460 of invoices from Poole Lumber Company totaling 47 noting that these 33 189 represented the cost of materials needed for curative work Another set of invoices represented payments to Bill Rentschler a builder who monitored the project for the Pullens Dr Pullen also testified that he hired Middleton to point out problems in the work that had been done by CAI and to serve as the Pullens expert witness Dr Pullen was very worried about some structural matters explaining that he felt he needed an expert opinion on those items because he s was really concerned that the dwelling would not stand Just looking at the north wall that CAI had installed he could see there was nothing holding it up it was not attached to any other part of the structure Another main concern was how the new breakfast room dining room and kitchen were going to be held together On Middleton advice lam beams were installed to support those s areas as well as on all four sides of the carport to correct a drop of over three 8 Dr Pullen explained that he specializes in treatment of brain tumors with radio surgery which he provides through contracts with several hospitals in the area and in New Orleans 16 inches He testified that there were also problems with the sills and floor joists as well as with the stud walls and framing all of which required corrective work after CAI was terminated Dr Pullen identified payments for those materials payments to a plumber and electrician and payments for cabinets beams flooring roofing insulation drywall installation and finishing and sandblasting Dr Pullen testified that when CAI services were discontinued the interiors s of the new sections had not been closed in at all there was no insulation or sheetrock on the interior walls The electrical and plumbing work was incomplete The metal roofing was not on The Pullens searched three months before they could find someone to complete the project In the interim they had Rentschler secure the building against the elements They eventually found two carpenters from Bogalusa to do the work Beau Hartfield and David Atkinson paid them 35 per hour and paid their helpers 25 per hour The Pullens According to Dr Pullen the wages reflected the postKatrina scarcity of experienced craftsmen These carpenters did not have access to a complete set of plans because the Pullens had never received those from CAI Despite that Dr Pullen said they seemed to know what they were doing Dr Pullen testified that besides the problems they already knew about when the carpenters began their work additional problems were discovered and had to be corrected Because so much had to be pulled out and re done the Pullens made some design changes in the house including switching the kitchen and dining room enlarging the master bathroom adding an additional outside deck and putting a roofing system over both outside decks With all of the tearing out corrective work design changes and additions it took an additional 000 625 and 17 months of work for the Pullen house to be completed David Atkinson who had 30 years of experience as a carpenter testified that when he began working on the Pullen residence n was right othing His 9 Although Dr Pullen identified copies of invoices for many other materials used to complete the house the Pullens did not claim these as part of the curative costs owed to them by CAI 17 description of specific problems included plywood subfloors that had not been staggered floor joists crowned upside down causing humps in the floor throughout the new sections headers that were removed and had nothing put in their place causing sagging many areas beneath the building where blocks had to be inserted and sills replaced a sagging main sill where a plumber had cut it floor joists that were not level water damage to the new subfloors and to the pine floors in the original house wall studs installed with the crowns facing opposite directions making the walls wavy wall studs crooked and spaced unevenly some exterior siding installed backwards with the smooth side showing rather than the textured side bad notches and rotten areas in a beam supporting the cathedral ceiling in the kitchen inadequate beams in the carport causing the supporting members to sag rafters in the carport that were crooked and not on twofoot centers one side of the carport three inches shorter than the other an uneven eyebrow structure around the whole new section and walls in the new section that were several inches higher than those in the existing house causing a misaligned roof line between the new and old sections In addition to tearing out and correcting all of those problems Atkinson said they also had to raise the chimney three feet so it would draw properly and raise the level of the cinder blocks supporting the decks to put them level with the main dwelling Atkinson said they never had a complete set of working drawings for the project identified his time sheets and explained the entries He admitting on cross examination that his highest hourly wage before the Pullen job was 18 per hour Atkinson also acknowledged that although he and Hartfield were being paid 25 per hour for each carpenter helper they were actually paying the helpers two of whom were their sons only 11 to 13 per hour The carpenter crew worked without direct supervision although Middleton came out and reviewed their progress and Rentschler provided general oversight The other carpenter Beau Hartfield reiterated many of the defects Atkinson had described and confirmed that they never had a complete set of plans 18 for this extensive work He spoke of putting additional blocks footings and piers under the house to support it and correct sagging of the floor Plywood decking on the subfloor had to be pulled out and reinstalled because it was not staggered and did not hit the joists other portions had delaminated due to standing water Many joists were uneven and crowned improperly so they had to be removed and replaced Wet and moldy sheetrock and insulation in the original house was pulled out and replaced Wall studs were not level were crowned improperly and were uneven Also there was a three inch difference between the new walls and the existing walls so most of the eyebrow around the new sections of the house had to be taken down and adjusted All the tongue and groove boards had to be removed from the eaves and the rafter tails had to be replaced Sagging beams in the house and carport were replaced with lam beams There were no blocks against the house walls to support the outside decks where they met those walls so the carpentry crew raised the existing blocks and tied the decking into the building by nailing it to the sill Hartfield discussed the entries on his time sheets and said he and Atkinson did not waste time or do work that was not necessary He said that as they did the work they discovered other problems that had to be corrected and it was not the type of construction that just came together easily One of the inspectors told them that on the north wall in the kitchen the studs had to go from the floor to the ceiling so they reconstructed that wall They also rebuilt the east wall They had to cut some pipes during their work but they tried to just pull back and not cut the electrical wiring that was in place Hartfield testified that Rentschler visited the job site regularly and consulted with them concerning the work Middleton also came out and took notes on the project Hartfield said his highest wage rate on previous work was 30 per hour Bill Rentschler who had been in the construction business for forty years testified that he began visiting the project at the request of Mrs Pullen father s before meeting either of the Pullens Right from the beginning he noticed a lot of poor workmanship by CAI In addition to exposure of the original house to the 19 weather there was debris all over the work site and a general organization lack of When he eventually met the Pullens he agreed to look at the project periodically and point out problems so they could discuss them with Jones Rentschler commented on a number of the photographs in the record pointing out deficiencies he had recognized some of which he considered dangerous structural problems He also described the ceiling decking in the addition which was one by six tongue and groove boards supported by beams spaced between four and five feet apart which was inadequate Rentschler said this was all taken off after CAI was terminated and was redone using two by six tongue and groove boards He did not mince words in providing his opinion of s CAI work stating If I would have pointed all the deficiencies out Mr Jones would have been gone the first damn day Because he had no supervision there whatsoever I could have sent up a half a dozen children that could take and cut all that expensive material into three and four foot pieces and nailed them up on the side of the house I was so disgusted with the quality of workmanship I was I said if this is what ready to throw myself under the train carpenters are today I am glad as hell I am damn near dead and t won be doing this long Because I wouldn tsign my name to that kind of crap Rentschler acknowledged that a reasonable length of time to complete this renovation project would have been approximately a year but when as in this case you have to tear out almost everything to start over again it takes about twice as much time Middleton said his first visit to the project was in June 2006 The Pullens had asked him to check the project and advise them about anything that had to be corrected Middleton described himself as a perfectionist saying that he was very concerned with quality work Based on what he saw he said it seemed the people doing the work did not really know what they were doing either they lacked supervision or were terribly inexperienced He acknowledged that after Katrina it was difficult finding skilled help but said it was available if you were willing to pay for it For post Katrina repair work on his own house he paid about 20 what the Pullens had to pay the carpenters who did their corrective work He described many of the same deficiencies that had been detailed by the Pullens and other witnesses and stated To correct all of that is very very labor intensive and you almost have to go back down to the studs to get it where you can start over again and get it right Middleton said if this had been his house with the amount of money being spent he would have torn it down and started over again However this was not practical especially since the work had been ongoing for seven or eight months and the house was still not totally framed s Middleton first written report to the Pullens attorney was dated June 13 2006 It stated that although the current addition was supposed to match the existing structure in materials and method of construction there was very little match between the two The framing of the addition appeared to have been done by someone with limited knowledge of basic framing practices as evidenced by wood filler used to patch holes where improper cuts were made the uneven and irregular fasciasoffit and inappropriate lengths and crooked application of cedar siding which appeared to be fencing material The report described the badly notched beam or truss in the dining room which Middleton doubted would carry the load The report also noted that instead of the specified two by six tongue and groove boards in the ceiling one by six boards had been used across four foot spans which were likely to sag over time After listing numerous additional problems the report summarized the following recommendations 1 Remove and replace all roof overhang and eyebrow construction 2 3 Replace 1x roof decking with 2x T G Replace beams in Dining Room to match existing in size and type 4 Reinforce walls where beams meet walls 5 Remove sub flooring where humped Replace floor joists to guarantee a level floor Straighten bowed uneven studs to attain straight walls and level top plate Provide fire blocking at all walls Remove and replace all exterior siding where wood filler was used to patch improper cuts Replace main beam in carport and replace with Engineered 6 7 8 9 Glue Lam Beam 21 10 11 Brace roof joists to walls or beam not to ceiling joists Provide wood column at west end of carport where beam meets wall s Middleton report estimated this corrective work would cost between 121 200 and 135 In a followup letter on March 30 2007 Middleton addressed deficiencies that had become apparent since his initial report design oversights resulting in additional work and costs job conditions that led to damage to the original structure work performed to correct deficiencies and bring the building up to code and costs to rectify these matters He opined that in light of the originally unseen deficiencies the cost of the corrective work had been reasonably accomplished for 190 These costs were expended to bring the project to 000 the point at which it should have been when CAI was told to cease construction Steve Owens a local contractor testified on rebuttal that he used s Middleton June 13 2006 report to prepare cost estimates for correcting the deficiencies in CAI completed work He went to the site took measurements of s the areas that needed work and estimated the cost of materials and labor as 25 807 29 However there were some items that he did not feel were really necessary Therefore he did a second estimate of the costs to repair just those items that he believed were needed That estimate was 17 944 He also testified that he was shocked at how much the carpenters had charged the Pullens to do the work after CAI services were terminated He said the high average in s the St Tammany area for 2006 was 17 per hour for a carpenter and 13 per 34 hour for a laborer Owens had reviewed the carpenters time sheets and could not find material invoices to match the work they were recording He also noticed that their work did not seem to be logically organized for example instead of working on all the floor joists at one time the time sheets showed their work on floor joists was intermittent Owens also believed that some of their time was for extra work required when the designs were changed rather than for actual curative work He said that to complete the repairs enumerated by Middleton a two or threeman crew could have finished in about 25 days and the entire 22 house as originally designed by CAI could have been completed in three months Owens said he believed the Pullens received bad advice and small items were blown out of proportion For example he said that although he admired s Middleton expertise he overreacted looking at it because he a perfectionist s you know He likes to see something dead perfect straight Also Owens believed the people doing the work could find more things wrong so they could keep making more money than they have ever made before in their lives Several other witnesses were called by the Pullens Frank L Deffes an electrician working with Sugarland Electric Construction L whose name was C affixed to the electrical permit obtained by CAI testified that he had bid the Pullen job but was not awarded the contract He did not apply for the permit did not sign it and did no work on the job Deborah Young a good friend of the Pullens visited them at the construction site on Easter Sunday in April 2006 She noticed the contrast between the beautiful post and beam construction in the original house and the poor quality of materials and workmanship in the new areas Young described a warped old piece of salvaged lumber that had just sort of been toenailed in to support a loadbearing wall She saw that one of the windows was not installed and used a tape measure and level that she found at the site to determine that the opening was not level such that a window installed in that opening would not open and shut Young said some of the wall studs were about an eighth of an inch smaller at the bottom than at the top and were not true 16 inch centerto center spacing As they walked through the house she noticed the seams of the plywood subfloors were not staggered When she saw the original gorgeous cypress and oak builtin bookcases they were water damaged She said It was just awful Also there was water damage all along the baseboards and so much white mold all over the heart pine floors that she did not believe they could be 10 Young had acted as general contractor on her own house had built five barns and her husband was an electronics engineer Therefore the court allowed her testimony as an informed lay witness concerning what she saw at the Pullen house 23 salvaged She noticed problems with the wiring and said her husband came in and said it was not according to code and would all have to be taken out The sheetrock in the original walls was wet and there was mold everywhere e ven places you wouldn tthink there would be mold Because of openings in the roof the wind and rain was blowing into this house Young asked the Pullens to show her the blueprints and was told that they did not have any only a little piece of paper that was like a line drawing of the Floor plan which had no specs did not show how the doors swung and had no elevations She said that looking up she could see that none of the rafters were even The biggest problem she saw was with the angle of the new roof where it met the existing house She thought the integrity of the structure might be compromised The beam down the middle of the carport was already sagging and the roof was not even on yet Young believed that the entire carport might come down in a strong wind and told Mrs Pullen that it needed to be reworked with an engineered beam or an I beam Gary Richmond who was hired by CAI as a cleanup person and moved to s carpenter helper after a week on the Pullen job testified that he began working there shortly after Katrina and left toward the end of February 2006 His hourly wage in both positions was 10 per hour The project was being supervised by Jade Rung but he was not at the job site very often and left the job toward the end of October The head carpenter on the job was Mike Akers however his hours varied and when he was not there no one supervised the work of the rest of the crew all of whom were inexperienced carpenter helpers s Richmond helped put up the stud walls He said a lot of the studs were twisted or warped and although some of them were cut out and replaced it still did not solve the entire problem When they were ready to tie in the exterior walls to the existing house they realized the new walls were about three inches too high However there was nothing that could be done at that point so they just tied them into the 11 Jones described Akers as an average grade carpenter who had done some construction work before 24 existing house Richmond also helped lay the subflooring he and the other s carpenter helpers were not told to install the plywood in a staggered fashion He said there was one place with a really bad hump in it which he was told would be taken care of with compound on the floor There was also a lot of water damage Rain came through the rafters of the new section and through the windows and roofing that had been removed at the front of the original house Jade Rung testified that he was a licensed construction engineer and had been a construction manager for CAI He was the project manager for the beginning of the Pullen job including the foundations the piers the floor joists and the start of the floor decking He left at the end of October 2005 Rung said they had a complete set of plans that were on file with the parish and included foundation drawings framing drawings electrical layout and HVAC layout He said there were some uneven sections of the flooring that would require shimming or cutting a joist or two loose to free them up but no major problems He testified that the electrical work was done by an employee of Sugarland Electrical who was not a licensed electrician Although the permit was in the name of Sugarland the company did not perform any electrical work on the premises While he was managing the project he was on site only once or twice a week because he was also working another project for CAI Elaine Beck testified that she observed the damaged walls and floors as the result of rain coming into the structure The floors were severely warped Mrs Pullen had expressed her dislike of the planned kitchen area because it was too small with no food pantry or microwave and was not very functional in relation to the living area So Beck suggested switching the location of the kitchen and dining room which resulted in a larger kitchen with a nice size pantry Also as a result of this change the dining room was immediately to the right of the front entrance rather than that being the location of the kitchen Beck sketched the layout of the rooms and planned the kitchen to make use of cabinets that had already been ordered by CAI and were in storage 25 She also made some recommendations concerning the master bathroom because the shower door was opening into the tub So the shower was moved and enlarged making the bathroom space more functional Beck said she was never given a complete set of plans and whenever she asked Mrs Pullen told her that Jones is working on it In September 2006 she herself made a sketch of the kitchen layout in order to guide the installation of fixtures and cabinets John M Klein Jr a plumber operating under the trade name of John s Plumbing worked on the plumbing for the Pullens after CAI had been terminated He testified that when he began the job there were some things that were not up to code and were preventing them from passing inspections Klein was actually the second plumber who worked on the Pullen property after CAI services were s discontinued Therefore he did not know which work had been done by CAI and which had been done by the previous plumber ANALYSIS We address first CAI first three assignments of error all of which are s based on its contention that the court legally erred in awarding the Pullens an amount to complete the project and not awarding CAI its contract balance CAI also argues that no damages for failure to complete the project should have been awarded since the Pullens terminated CAI services and would not allow it to s complete the project or correct its errors We disagree with CAI characterization s of the award This award was not for damages for CAI failure to complete the s Pullens residence nor was it for completion costs Based on a thorough review of the evidence we are convinced that the trial court award to the Pullens of an s amount to complete the project was actually the amount the court found was needed to bring the construction to the point where it should have been when s CAI services were terminated thus completing the project to that date The evidence shows that this award was made to remedy defects that were not itemized by Middleton in his initial report and were not priced by Owens in either of his reports Middleton sJune 13 2006 letter listed only those items in the new 26 section of the house that he could see at the time and that he believed should be corrected That letter did not address any of the damage to the original house which was extensive and necessitated repair and refurbishing of that structure Also as he noted in a followup letter a year later there were additional problems that were discovered during the curative work these also had to be corrected and were not included in his June 13 2006 letter Owens testified that he based his cost estimates on the items listed in that letter only The court used the lesser of Owens two cost estimates as the basis of its award for curative work Therefore although the court used the words to complete the project we do not interpret this as an award of completion costs which the evidence showed were actually 625 Therefore we find no legal error in the court decision 000 s to award labor costs for additional work beyond what was itemized in Middleton s letter and Owens cost estimate as curative work 13 Turning to the Pullens assignments of error the first three assignments challenge the court finding that the Pullens were at fault in failing to mitigate s their damages by not properly supervising the work being done on their home and by paying too much in labor costs after terminating the contract with CAI The Pullens seek the full amount of their labor costs which they contend were reasonable under the post Katrina circumstances Based on our review of the evidence we conclude that the court finding that the Pullens did not mitigate s their damages was manifestly erroneous The evidence concerning the costs for post Katrina labor was from the Pullens the two carpenters whom they hired Middleton Jones and Owens The Pullens testified that they looked diligently for three months before they could find skilled carpenters to correct the construction defects repair the damages to the original structure and complete the house They were finally able to locate 12 We pretermit discussion of CAI fourth assignment of error since it was premised on this court s s reversal of the award to the Pullens and an award to CAI of its unpaid contract balance 13 As will be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs of this analysis although the court decision s to make such an award was not legal error the amount of the award will need to be adjusted due to manifest error in some of the computations 27 Hartfield and Atkinson in Bogalusa based on a recommendation from Mrs Pullen s father There is no doubt that their hourly rates were high but Middleton testified that he had hired carpenters to do repair work on his own house in the wake of the hurricane and their wages were comparable to what the Pullens paid Jones was asked what he paid his carpenters in that time frame or today He responded Carpenters that are working for me today if they are a foreman re they making probably someplace between 20 and 25 an hour Helpers are making between 10 and 12 Carpenters assistant carpenters are making in the 18 to 20 range Emphasis added The case was tried in May 2008 Jones did not offer hourly wage figures or produce payroll records for the work done during the late 20052006 time period In fact CAI presented no evidence of the amounts it was paying its one carpenter and several carpenter helpers who s worked on the Pullens house during that time The hourly wage rate for skilled laborers at the time of trial in May 2008 has no relevance to the hourly wage rate for the same laborers in the extreme situation following Katrina Moreover Owens although he referred to a statistical report of the average regional wage for carpenters in 2006 never stated what he was paying his own workers during that time period saying only I generally try to pay all my people 10 to 20 percent above the regional average In addition Owens was not at the site while the work was being done and had no way of knowing what the crew was doing on any particular day Although Owens claimed he could not match up materials with the type of work the carpenters claimed to be doing the initial purchase from Poole Lumber when they first began working included many of the items Owen mentioned Therefore his testimony was more speculative than factual and there is no other evidence in the record that the wages paid by the Pullens were excessive or that the carpenters padded their work records We note also that the Pullens who were not knowledgeable in construction and renovation took reasonable steps to minimize the possibility of problems with the construction of their home They hired an architect with years of contractor 28 experience and a good reputation whose work they already knew They also had a high personal opinion of him and a friendly relationship with him and his wife Mrs Pullen was on the job site almost every day to review the progress of the work The Pullens asked many times for a copy of the full set of plans so they could monitor what was being done They consulted with Rentschler and had him observe the progress of the job in order to learn if there were deficiencies in the materials or workmanship so they could relay those concerns to Jones They met with Jones or called him on many occasions to communicate their worries about the progress and quality of the work When he failed to deliver on his promises and they could clearly see the damage to the original house and the defects in the new construction they sought the advice of an architect When they finally decided they had to terminate CAI services they hired Rentschler to oversee the s rest of the work on their behalf The evidence shows they did everything they could reasonably do to protect their investment and ensure proper performance of the construction contract When despite their continued best efforts to monitor the work CAI breached the contract by delays shoddy construction and irreparable damage to portions of the original house the Pullens chose the only reasonable alternative and found other people to complete the project Their decisions to modify and expand the design to make it more functional and to upgrade some of the materials has no relevance whatsoever to whether they did what was reasonable to mitigate the damages that had already been caused Finally although CAI contends the Pullens submitted many invoices for labor that was necessitated by design changes or were simply needed to complete the house the evidence shows that the Pullens claimed damages only for items required to correct deficiencies and repair damages A Carpenters Recapitulation in the record is supported by weekly time sheets with entries for 14 CAI included in its argument an allegation that some of the materials were also not needed for curative work However CAI did not assign as error the cost of those materials and in fact stated that it did not contest the court factual finding on that point s 29 each item of work done That work is then summarized for each week as curative work non curative work or miscellaneous The entries on the carpenters time sheets can be correlated with their testimony concerning the curative work that had to be done The recapitulation shows that as would be expected the initial weeks of work are spent entirely on curative work As the job proceeds later weeks begin to show more non curative work such as putting on the roof and installing the outer decks The total of 93 claimed for the carpenters 25 460 work includes the labor costs for curative work only plus the rental cost of the sandblaster used to refurbish the ceiling in the original house On reviewing these entries however we noticed that there were three weeks during which changing of windows is shown as curative work This should not have been so labeled because in the first change order Dr Pullen approved the use of aluminum windows rather than wood windows throughout the house Therefore the labor costs for this activity totaling 6 should not have been included as 50 019 curative work thus bringing the cost of such labor to 87 75 440 Accordingly although there was an evidentiary basis for the court factual s finding our review of the entirety of the record persuades us that the court was clearly wrong in finding that the Pullens did not mitigate their damages and in reducing the labor costs they incurred in curative work Based on our review of the evidence the total labor cost for curative work in the amount of 87 75 440 should have been awarded to the Pullens However this total labor cost includes the amount that was needed to repair the defects in the work that had already been completed by CAI and is not an award in addition to that work The carpenters time sheets did not differentiate between work that they did to correct the defects in CAI completed work and work that they did to rectify damage to s the original structure and to correct additional problems they discovered This will 15 The week of 11 included 1 the week of 11 included 2 and the week of 06 14 680 06 20 372 06 27 11 included 1 50 967 16 93 6 25 50 460 019 75 440 87 30 be taken into consideration in our amendments to the judgment We also find that the trial court manifestly erred in reducing the award for curative costs to 17 based on Owens second estimate rather than using 06 944 his first estimate which included all the defective items Middleton had noted in his June 13 2006 letter CAI admitted in its petition that it recognized that certain remedial work was needed to correct defects in its construction as was described in Middleton letter and Owens first cost estimate and that the cost of this s remedial work was 29 25 807 Other than Owens opinion there was no evidence that the items described by Middleton were not necessary or required by the contract Owens eliminated some items from his second computation because they were not required by the local building codes or were not needed for structural integrity For instance he eliminated the replacement of the ceiling decking that Middleton had recommended because it was not in a place on which people would walk However the contract called for a match between the old and new structures as much as possible Therefore the use of two by six tongue and groove boards was required by the contract Moreover even Jones admitted that the one by sixes were incorrect he said he thought the supplier must have shipped the wrong material and the guys just put it in Another item that Owen thought was unnecessary was the replacement of the main beam in the carport with an engineered gluelam beam He opined that it could simply be jacked back up and have additional plywood added However the record shows that CAI attempted a similar repair to that beam and according to all the witnesses except Jones the beam continued to sag Most significantly Jones testified I agree with Mr Middleton sreport which stated all of the items should be corrected Therefore the award to CAI will be adjusted to reflect 29 as the curative 25 807 costs to be deducted from its award for the work it had completed on the job However as noted above these curative costs were included in the total labor costs that we have determined should have been awarded Therefore to avoid a double recovery to the Pullens for the total curative work the total award 31 for labor costs will be reduced to 57 50 633 The Pullens also claim there was insufficient evidence to support CAI s claim for storage costs for certain cabinets and doors for which the court awarded CAI 5 The court reasons for judgment explain that this amount was 69 363 s for storage of the doors which were never picked up by defendants Jones testified that he had ordered custom doors which the lumber company was willing to store for a while However at some point CAI was asked to take the doors Since CAI was no longer on the job and Jones had no place to put them he rented a PODS unit in which to store them so they would not deteriorate Jones also said CAI had put down a deposit on cabinets for the kitchen and master bedroom According to Jones the cabinet company Singer Kitchens said it would store them for a while and then told CAI it would have to start charging for storage of the units Jones testified that he thought CAI paid storage charges for a couple of months until eventually the Pullens went to the cabinet company paid the balance and retrieved the cabinets He identified the entries for storage charges on CAI statement dated March 25 2008 s PODS rental charges for storing the doors were shown as 157 per month from June 2006 through May 69 2007 and 158 per month from June 2007 through March 2008 cabinet 41 storage was shown as 250 per month from June 2006 through November 2006 Mrs Pullen testified concerning the Singer cabinets She said Singer Kitchens called her to say the cabinets were there that it could not keep them and that there was a balance due Within about two weeks she paid the balance due picked up the cabinets and put them in a storage unit she was sharing with a friend The Pullens then received a letter from Jones seeking payment of storage charges for the cabinets and she immediately called Singer to ask whether there were storage fees due and whether CAI had been paying storage fees According to Mrs Pullen the bookkeeper told her that nothing had been charged for any type of storage saying They told me without a doubt there was 75 25 440 807 87 29 50 633 57 32 never a charge to Construction Affiliates or Mr Cal Jones The record also includes invoices from Southern Kitchens which do not show any storage fees charged or paid We note first that there was no evidence in the record to dispute Jones claim about the storage of the custom doors in a PODS rental unit said nothing about picking up or using those doors The Pullens The CAI statement shows two twenty months of such storage for a total of 3476 Therefore this 38 amount was properly awarded to CAI However the charges for six months storage of the cabinets was disputed both by Mrs Pullen testimony and by the s actual invoice from Singer Kitchens which did not show any such charges either paid or unpaid We conclude therefore that there was insufficient evidence supporting the court award to CAI for six months storage of those cabinets or s 1500 and that portion of the award to CAI was manifestly erroneous Therefore the award to CAI for storage fees will be amended to 3 38 476 The Pullens last assignment of error challenged the court award to CAI s for completed work for which it had not been paid They allege that award should be reduced because the work was done poorly We disagree with this argument The court award took into account the defects in that work when it subtracted s the amount needed to cure the deficiencies However we have found that the court erred in deducting only 17 rather than 29 a difference of 06 944 25 807 19 863 11 Therefore the award to CAI for work it had completed but for which it had not been paid will be reduced to 39 75 006 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO JUDGMENT As a result of this court findings the award to the Pullens for total labor s costs is increased to 57 the award of 47 for materials is 50 633 33 189 18 12 months @ 157 69 28 1892 10 months @ 158 41 10 1584 19 The court award of 5363 exceeds the total storage costs shown on the statement which s 69 were only 4976 38 20 The trial court awarded 68 for the balance due for the work performed Deducting 00 814 25 807 29 from that amount to cure the defects in the work yields a balance of 39 75 006 33 affirmed Therefore they are entitled to the total sum of 104 CAI is 83 822 entitled to an award for completed work for which it was not previously paid in the amount of 39 and a further award for storage of doors in the amount 75 006 of 3for a total award of 42 After applying the amounts due to 38 476 13 483 CAI as a credit and offset against the amount owed to the Pullens the Pullens are entitled to an award of 62 70 339 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing the judgment of February 2 2009 is amended to increase the net award in favor of the Pullens to 62 70 339 In all other respects the judgment is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to CAI IN PART AMENDED IN AMENDED 34 PART AND AFFIRMED AS
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.
