Falkner v. Stubbs
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01664-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01664-COA ; 2010-CT-01664-SCT ; 2010-CT-01664-SCT ; 2010-CT-01664-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Reduction of price - Quantum meruit recovery - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Interest - Attorney's fees Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-01-2010 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: JUDGMENT OF $60,723.53 GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: H-2001-95 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Martin Falkner and wife, Valerie J. Falkner |
JOHN P. FOX |
||
| Appellee: | John E. Stubbs, Jr. d/b/a Mississippi Polysteel | GENE BARTON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Reduction of price - Quantum meruit recovery - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Interest - Attorney's fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Martin (Martin) Falkner and his wife, Valerie Falkner, hired John Stubbs to build a basement, prior to the Falkners building a log cabin above the basement on their land. Stubbs and the Falkners entered into an oral contract for Stubbs to complete the basement for a set fee of approximately $25,000. However, after completing the basement, the Falkners requested that Stubbs continue to work on the log cabin. Stubbs complied and stated the work would cost between $150,000 and $200,000. After the basement was completed and work on building the log cabin had begun, the Falkners instructed Stubbs and his workers to permanently vacate the premises. Stubbs complied and requested payment from the Falkners for the remainder of his expenses, including labor and materials. The Falkners refused, and Stubbs eventually filed a contractor’s lien in chancery court. He later filed an action in circuit court seeking reimbursement for his losses. The circuit judge ruled Stubbs was entitled to $60,723.53 from the Falkners. The Falkners appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Reduction of price The Falkners argue the circuit court erred by failing to reduce the original $25,000 price of the basement by the amount the Falkners claim they have done themselves due to Stubbs’s failure to complete the basement. There is clear evidence in the record the original agreed-upon price for Stubbs’s construction of the basement was $25,000. Stubbs submitted very detailed accounting records including his labor and his workers’ labor broken down into daily hours during the entirety of the project. Stubbs also provided invoices and records of costs paid by Stubbs for the materials used in the home. While the Falkners claim Stubbs failed to complete the basement and the work contained defects, an on-site inspection performed by the circuit judge showed no sign of defects, nor can the Falkners point to costs associated with the repair of the alleged defects. Furthermore, Stubbs documented the progress of the basement project in photographs which clearly show the constructed basement. According to Stubbs’s records, in the five months he worked on the Falkners’ home, he requested and received seven draws totaling $46,540.25. However, his records further indicate his labor and expenses well exceeded that amount due to Martin’s changes to the basement and his enlistment of Stubbs to continue working on the rest of the home. Thus, there is no error in the circuit judge’s conclusion that the $25,000 price for construction of the basement was agreed upon by the parties and is owed to Stubbs by the Falkners. Issue 2: Quantum meruit fees The Falkners argue that the circuit judge erred by applying the theory of quantum meruit to determine Stubbs’s recovery for his labor and reimbursement for the amount he paid for his workers’ labor. Because the Falkners failed to support or even mention their argument regarding the assessment of fees after defining the issue in the statement of issues, the Court is not bound to address it as provided in M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6). It is clear Stubbs provided ample documentation to prove he incurred substantial damages as a result of the Falkners’ refusal to pay him for his work on their home. The circuit judge’s application of quantum meruit to the case in his effort to determine a reasonable fee per hour does not render the award unjust. Stubbs’s losses were adequately documented in his records. Issue 3: Interest The Falkners argue the circuit court erred in awarding pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as well as attorney’s fees to Stubbs. A review of the cases cited by the Falkners supports their theory that quantum meruit cases prohibit an award of interest or attorney’s fees. Because the case involves a contract implied in law between the Falkners and Stubbs and is, therefore, a quantum merit suit, the circuit court’s award of pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees was improper. However, nothing prohibits the circuit court’s assessment of post-judgment interest. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
