Opinion
No. C7-02-98.
Filed July 30, 2002.
Appeal from the District Court, Cook County, File No. C401032.
Thomas W. Spence, (for respondent)
James W. Weisberg, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant, a contractor, brought an action to enforce a mechanic's lien for the balance he claimed was due for labor performed at respondent's residence. Respondent brought a counterclaim to recover the costs of correcting appellant's allegedly negligent work and the diminution in value of her home. Appellant now challenges the district court's judgment awarding respondent damages, arguing that respondent presented insufficient evidence that appellant's negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to her home. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant John Westphall entered into a written contract with respondent Cathy Tormondsen to perform construction work at Tormondsen's home. The total price for the completed project, which appellant estimated would take 30 working days to complete, was $27,840.
Five months later, respondent had paid appellant over $40,000, but appellant had still not completed the project. Respondent fired appellant and hired another worker to finish and correct appellant's work. Appellant billed respondent approximately $4,600 for labor and materials. Respondent paid the bill after deducting approximately $4,000, the amount she had spent to complete or correct appellant's tasks.
Appellant then served respondent with a mechanic's lien for work and material provided pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 514.08, subd. 2 (2000). Appellant brought an action to enforce the lien. Respondent brought a counterclaim in tort to recover the cost of repairing appellant's allegedly negligent work and the diminution to her home's value due to appellant's negligence.
As soon as trial began, appellant acknowledged that he did not have a contractor's license when he recorded his mechanic's lien. Appellant dismissed the mechanic's lien, recognizing it was not valid, and amended his complaint to allege an equitable lien against respondent's property for the same amount as the mechanic's lien.
At trial, respondent presented evidence, including testimony and photographs, of numerous deficiencies in appellant's contracting performance, including the improper or incomplete construction and installation of deck posts, floors, walls, ceilings, door openings, heating units, and the roof. Respondent estimated that had the work been done according to her expectations, her home would be worth approximately $315,000, and that the home's value as a result of appellant's negligence was approximately $300,000.
The district court awarded respondent $20,749 for damage to her home, less $4,071.17 due appellant for work already performed. Appellant moved for a new trial or to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law, arguing that respondent had failed to prove causation. The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
DECISION
We review a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. LaValle v. Aqualand Pool Co., 257 N.W.2d 324, 328 (Minn. 1977). In actions tried to the district court without a jury, findings of fact based on oral and documentary evidence shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due deference is given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01; Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp., 552 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Minn. 1996). Weighing conflicting evidence with respect to damages is a credibility determination by the district court to which we must defer. See Alstores Realty, Inc. v. State, 286 Minn. 343, 353, 176 N.W.2d 112, 118 (1970). We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court's judgment, and will not reverse that judgment merely because it views the evidence differently. Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999).
Appellant challenges the district court's conclusion that appellant's work was the proximate cause of damage to respondent's house. Appellant argues that the damage is attributable to preexisting conditions or intervening causes and that respondent is claiming as damage what is really work left unfinished because respondent prematurely fired appellant. Appellant's causation argument repeatedly asks that we invade the province of the factfinder by reweighing the evidence and revisiting trial testimony to discover possible causes of damage other than appellant's poor workmanship. We are unwilling to do so.
Appellant also argues that the district court erred by adopting respondent's damages estimate instead of his own lower estimate. The amount of damages occasioned by a contractor's negligence is a fact question. Knutson v. Lasher, 219 Minn. 594, 603, 18 N.W.2d 688, 694 (1945). Moreover, "[a] trial court is not bound by the opinion of any witness concerning values, and its finding will be sustained if it is within the limits of the evidence as to values." Id. at 604, 18 N.W.2d at 695 (citation omitted). The amount of damages awarded by the district court came well within the limits of the evidence presented.
The record contains ample evidence that most, if not all, of the work appellant performed for respondent was neither timely nor proficient, and did not meet any reasonable standard of workmanship. Appellant's argument that he would have finished the project to respondent's satisfaction but for respondent firing him is unsupported by the record, which shows that appellant far exceeded his time and expense estimates without satisfactorily completing the project. The district court appropriately denied appellant's motion for a new trial.