Summary 2007 WY 49

Summary of Decision issued March 20, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance with a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Snelling v. Roman, d/b/a/ Alpine Excavation

Citation: 2007 WY 49

Docket Number: 06-91

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County, the Honorable Dan Spangler (Retired), Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Ronald L. Spelling, pro se..

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Virgil G. Kinnaird and Sheryl Smith Bunting of Kinnaird Law Office, P.C., Sheridan, Wyoming.

Issues: Was it reversible error to dismiss counts I, II and III of plaintiff’s complaint all of which were based on defendant’s representations that the road to be constructed for plaintiff was to be approximately one-half mile in length when the actual road constructed was 1150 feet long? Was it reversible error to find as fact that the plaintiff had the same information as did defendant as to the length of the road to be built for $35,000.00 where the contract between the parties specified a road to be approximately one-half mile long and where the evidence showed that plaintiff [w]as not in Wyoming when the road was staked and buil[t] by defendant? Was it reversible error for the trial court to award defendant the full amount of his invoice for certain excavation work when the invoice included work done after the plaintiff instructed the defendant to do no further work? Was it reversible error for the Trial Court to award defendant the full amount of his excavation invoice based on the Trial Court’s determination that such amount was reasonable when the Trial Court excluded plaintiff’s offered expert testimony as to reasonableness? Was it reversible error for the Trial Court to permit a non-disclosed expert witness to testify over objection that 15 to 24 rocks provided by defendant to plaintiff were worth $12,000.00 when the witness had stated he would have to look more closely at the rocks to value them? Was it reversible error for the Trial Court to find that the amount of plaintiff’s black dirt taken by defendant was “insignificant” when there was no testimony or evidence to the amount of black dirt defendant was entitled to in trade for 15 to 24 rocks?

Facts/Discussion: Snelling bought land near Story, Wyoming on which to build a house. He hired Roman to do dirt work at the home site. Snelling paid a portion of Roman’s bill but in the end decided he was dissatisfied and refused to pay the outstanding balance. Snelling initiated the current action against Roman, alleging breach of contract and fraud. Roman counterclaimed, seeking payment for his completed services and material costs. After a bench trial, the trial judge dismissed all of Snelling’s claims and granted judgment for Roman on his counterclaims.
Standard of Review: After a bench trial, the Court reviews the trial court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal conclusions de novo. A finding will only be set aside if, although there is evidence to support it, the Court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. In reviewing a trial court’s construction of a contract, the initial question of whether the contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the Court.
Length of the Road: Snelling suggested the length of the road was material to his agreement to offer a flat fee of $35,000. The Court reviewed the record and stated that language in the communications between Snelling and Roman was too ambiguous to suggest that Snelling was materially focused on the length of the road. They stated the district court was correct in determining that Snelling had the same information regarding the potential difficulty in constructing the road to his home site as did Roman. It was undisputed that Snelling met with Roman at the property roughly a month before he drafted the letter agreement. Snelling was in as good a position as Roman in estimating the potential length of the road to his home site and the difficulty involved in constructing such a road. Last, Snelling indicated he knew the road was not finally staked at the time of the letter agreement. He stated in the letter that he was sending Roman a copy of the legal description of the property and that the road would potentially need to be restaked given the new information. Given those reasons, the Court found Snelling’s first two issues to be without merit.
Invoice for work completed after Snelling instructed Roman to do no more work: The Court noted that Roman arrived home from work at Snelling’s property one day to find a message from Snelling instructing Roman to do no further work. Roman complied but submitted a bill for the gravel used in that day’s work. The Court stated Snelling’s objection to pay for the gravel was disingenuous. Snelling did not dispute that Roman did not get the message from Snelling until he had completed work for the day. Therefore Roman’s bill pertained solely to the work completed prior to receiving the message. Under the circumstances, the Court found no error in the district corut’s determination that Roman was entitled to the challenged amount especially since Roman charged only for materials supplied and that were accepted by Snelling.
Evidentiary Issues: The Court reviews a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard. The Court reviewed the record and noted the trial court allowed Snelling to admit evidence as to the reasonableness of Roman’s invoice and refused to hear further evidence on the same topic from the same witness. Snelling complained that Roman was allowed to elicit expert witness testimony from a witness who was designated only as a fact witness in Roman’s pretrial disclosure statement. The Court declined to discuss whether the testimony constituted inadmissible expert testimony because Snelling was not prejudiced by such testimony. There was no indication the trial court relied on the questioned testimony, nor was it necessary for the trial court to do so. Roman had testified extensively as to how he determined the price for the feature rocks. That testimony was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the feature rocks were worth $12,000 without reference to the testimony provided by Roman’s challenged witness.
Black Dirt: The initial agreement entered into with regard to the feature rocks was that Roman would trade the feature rocks to Snelling in exchange for black dirt that was being excavated from Snelling’s property. Roman took approximately two truckloads of dirt at about the same time as he delivered the feature rocks. Before Roman could claim more dirt, the payment dispute developed. The trial court found the two truckloads was insignificant and did not factor that amount into the valuation of the feature rocks. The Court stated the finding was not clearly erroneous. Roman billed Snelling for the feature rocks after he was stopped from taking any more dirt. It was a reasonable inference that Roman accounted for whatever value the black dirt he took may have had when preparing the invoice. The value of the black dirt Roman took could therefore have been considered inconsequential to the amount charged in the final invoice.

Holding: The Court found no reversible error. The record supported that the length of the road was not a material term in the contract for the initial dirt work. Roman adequately proved that he was entitled to judgment as entered.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yqeomd .